OK, a personal example. When my grandfather went into a nursing home the family were forced to sell the council house he and my nan had bought (becoming WC Thatcherites in the process) to fund it. He was devastated, all he wanted was to go home or go and check his home, sit in his chair, look at his garden. All that has been smoothed now. He could have gone home and sat in his chair in his lounge, even if just for a day. Perceptions.
Thereby denying the use of an empty house to a homeless family.
Not how he or my family viewed it. And I doubt a homeless family would have had the funding to buy it. They generally aren't cash rich,
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
Sincerest sympathies. That sounds grim.
The brother of a very good friend of mine suffers from a hideous neuro-degenerative disease, which has taken him from rich, happy, amiable father of three, to drooling semi-vegetable (I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it is the brutal truth) in a matter of three years. He's in his early 50s. Horrendous.
Dementia and its horrible acolytes touches many many people.
Thank you Sir. And ditto, very sad re the brother of your friend. It is, indeed, horrendous.
Anyway, I'm always glass half full despite the morbidity and the indiscriminate disasters that could befall us at any moment.
It's Friday, the sun's out and I've got cash on the hip. Life is pretty good.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Perceptions, mate, perceptions.
How many people were going to benefit from Osborne's Inheritance Tax proposals in 2007? Not many. Yet it shifted the mood of millions, sufficient for Brown to call off his election.
This is that, the other way round. Or so I fear. I hope I am wrong. Coz TMay needs a massive landslide for the good of the country - and the good of the Labour party (which will then come to its senses, or split).
If she gets a 40-50 seat win, or maybe even less, we are looking at the real and terrifying possibility of a Corbyn-esque Labour party taking power in 2022, with all that entails, simply due to the swing of the political pendulum.
I doubt it. No-one perceptibly to the left of Harold Wilson has won a GE in my lifetime. Wilson was shockingly 'extreme' by Thatcher and Sons standards but had charisma and was able to win against dull people like Ted Heath.
Within four years of 1966 though he was replaced by Heath who had zero charisma but was clearly a One Nation Tory and didn't repel the 'centre ground'. He won a similar percent to what May will get.
* In Gyles Brandreth's diaries, he and other Tories soon spotted in 1994 that Blair was 'one of us'. I haven't a clue how Blair ended up in a 'left wing' party; he seems to belong in a Centre Party or the Christian Democrats.
When we leave the European Union and its Common Fisheries Policy, we will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control. A new Conservative government will work with the shing industry and with our world-class marine scientists, as well as the devolved administrations, to introduce a new regime for commercial shing that will preserve and increase sh stocks and help to ensure prosperity for a new generation of shermen. To provide complete legal certainty to our neighbours and clarity during our negotiations with the European Union, we will withdraw from the London Fisheries Convention. We will continue our work to conserve the marine environment o the coast of the United Kingdom.
Wonder what Angus Robertson thinks about that......(the London Fisheries Convention pre-dates the CFP and allows boats from other countries access to waters from 6-12 miles - some Fishermen were worried that would remain in place: http://ffl.org.uk/brexit-backtrack-with-historic-rights/ - a worry that has proved unfounded)
UK would also lose access to other areas, e.g. Norwegian waters, which have a bilateral agreement with the EU
Some research shows that Caroline Lucas was probably the first to use it against the Tories, yesterday. But the concept has been around for a while: and has been aimed at all governments, ironically. This is from 2008:
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
Not a factor that troubled you when people of working age overwhelmingly rejected your daft Brexit idea.
Which is irrelevant. Everyone's vote is the same in a referendum.
It is neither fair, nor economically sensible, to increase taxes on income, in order to maximise the amount of capital that some lucky heirs will inherit.
You would like to think that Theresa May made the announcement because she believes it is the right thing to do, no matter how brave. It is certainly the right thing to do in terms of generating debate about an issue that as @Fenster noted, is now arguably one of our most pressing challenges.
Sometimes it is the job of government to lead, not follow. Maggie knew this.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
We are always mistaking Peter the Punter for Peter from Putney, yet no-one ever mixes up Sean_F and SeanT. Discuss.
I don't think anybody thinks the dementia tax will be the end of Theresa May, but it's the latest in a string of unforced errors, coupled with a gravity-defying performance in the polls by Labour that have led me to radically revise my predictions (and bets) from a Con majority of around 150 to somewhere within to the 50-100 range.
A clear Conservative victory, but with serious implications for people who bet on a landslide. As well as implications for next Labour leader market and so on.
Dementia tax. Dementia tax. Just say it out loud once or twice. Slogan-wise it seems very likely to cut through and spread by word of mouth and social media. The next round of polling will be very interesting.
For all that Labour shouted Bedroom Tax incessantly during 2010-15, what impact did it really make in the end? Now, this might be different because it's happening three weeks from the election rather than three years from it. But ultimately, the idea that people pay for their care is one that most are used to and accept (not Lucas obviously, for whom the banned or relocated businesses will pay for everything).
It strikes me as the kind of marketing that is a bit too clever by half: the slogan sounds superficially good but when you drill down, it doesn't make sense without a whole lot of explanation.
The thing about the bedroom tax is it wasn't a tax, it was a reduction in benefit. The dementia tax is an actual tax in the sense of being presented with a bill when you die.
The effect of this is threefold, the oldies will worry about what they will be leaving behind for their kids, the middle aged will worry about their inheritance, and wavering voters in working class constituencies where the Tories are looking to make headway will see this and think 'I can't vote for the nasty party' even if they are not personally affected by the tax.
Unlike the bedroom "tax" the biggest problem here is that with the bedroom tax, you knew for sure if it affected you. And the number it actually affected was very low.
Dementia terrifies most people, it is uncertain and random and can happen to any of us at any time. A "dementia tax" potentially affects all of us.
OK, a personal example. When my grandfather went into a nursing home the family were forced to sell the council house he and my nan had bought (becoming WC Thatcherites in the process) to fund it. He was devastated, all he wanted was to go home or go and check his home, sit in his chair, look at his garden. All that has been smoothed now. He could have gone home and sat in his chair in his lounge, even if just for a day. Perceptions.
You would like to think that Theresa May made the announcement because she believes it is the right thing to do, no matter how brave. It is certainly the right thing to do in terms of generating debate about an issue that as @Fenster noted, is now arguably one of our most pressing challenges.
Sometimes it is the job of government to lead, not follow. Maggie knew this.
I don't think it is the right solution, but I certainly am glad that there now seems to be a consensus that more money needs to be spent on social care. There must be a decent chance that what actually becomes law will be a fair bit different from the manifesto, particularly if a good number of sensible Labour MPs tell Corbyn to do one on June 9th.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
The last point is the key. Caring for our very elderly and frail from our income is rapidly proving to be beyond us. So we need to use the capital, or at least some of the capital, that these elderly have to help.
The alternative is the sort of parsimonious half care people get at the moment with Carers rushing in and out of houses having lifted someone into a chair or put them back into a bed or rushing some food down them or wiping an arse without any chance at all of having a conversation or a cup of tea or a laugh before they race to their next appointment. And that's for those lucky enough to get any help at all.
I said yesterday and this morning that this Manifesto is brave in the Yes Minister sense and I am slightly apprehensive about how it will be received and perceived. But I really don't see a viable alternative. We need billions and billions extra for Social Care. As the proportion of our elderly increase where is it going to come from?
Well said 10 out of 10. Wish I had been as eloquent. Sean T I ususally agree with you but on this you could not be more wrong. What the Conservative manifesto is proposing is a serious solution to the greatest problem of our times. Such problems as the NHS has ALL spring from the failure to deal with this matter.
The little children from the loser parties might throw the odd tantrum. The proper politicians are trying to solve a major problem.
OK, a personal example. When my grandfather went into a nursing home the family were forced to sell the council house he and my nan had bought (becoming WC Thatcherites in the process) to fund it. He was devastated, all he wanted was to go home or go and check his home, sit in his chair, look at his garden. All that has been smoothed now. He could have gone home and sat in his chair in his lounge, even if just for a day. Perceptions.
Thereby denying the use of an empty house to a homeless family.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
You are a young fogey who prefers the company of sheep to people, yet you still wax lyrical about our AMAZING restaurants. If you profess not to like cities, stay in the countryside and eat bumpkin food washed down with yokel cider.
You'll find the countryside, particularly the non-SE countryside, has some of the better food in the country. Plus, it's not filled with people who think Pinot Grigio makes for a sophisticated drink.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
There's a question here: many people on here are (in my view) rather over-optimistic about how AI and technology will change our lives.
Do any of these wise sages have any views on how AI and technology may help reduce the cost of care, either in the home or in care homes?
Not being a wise sage, I cannot offer a view. However, I did read that there is work going on in Japan to produce robots that will perform some care functions.
As always I think you are being overly pessimistic about how technology will change our lives in the next decade or so. Probably because you know a lot more about it than me.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
The last point is the key. Caring for our very elderly and frail from our income is rapidly proving to be beyond us. So we need to use the capital, or at least some of the capital, that these elderly have to help.
The alternative is the sort of parsimonious half care people get at the moment with Carers rushing in and out of houses having lifted someone into a chair or put them back into a bed or rushing some food down them or wiping an arse without any chance at all of having a conversation or a cup of tea or a laugh before they race to their next appointment. And that's for those lucky enough to get any help at all.
I said yesterday and this morning that this Manifesto is brave in the Yes Minister sense and I am slightly apprehensive about how it will be received and perceived. But I really don't see a viable alternative. We need billions and billions extra for Social Care. As the proportion of our elderly increase where is it going to come from?
Well said 10 out of 10. Wish I had been as eloquent. Sean T I ususally agree with you but on this you could not be more wrong. What the Conservative manifesto is proposing is a serious solution to the greatest problem of our times. Such problems as the NHS has ALL spring from the failure to deal with this matter.
The little children from the loser parties might throw the odd tantrum. The proper politicians are trying to solve a major problem.
Yes and those little children all from loser parties (except UKIP) allopposed Osborne's inheritance tax cut last year so are quite prepared to raid family estates when it suits the.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
Oh good, we've been a bit "short" (geddit?) of actors telling us how to vote this election.
WillS.
Corbyn has De Vito and Michael Sheen, Farron has Hugh Grant, Sturgeon has Seen Connery but May will happily trade celebrity support for northern and Midlands voters (although she probably still has Joan Collins and Michael Caine)
I wonder if Joanna Cherry (SNP) will be looking at her 8K majority and thinking, gulp!
This launch was shown live on the Parliament Channel and SKY but not a peep on the BBC. They were talking to their own correspondent Hugh Pym about the NHS and then some item about video games.
It seems chatting to their own correspondents and is more important than the PM.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
There's a question here: many people on here are (in my view) rather over-optimistic about how AI and technology will change our lives.
Do any of these wise sages have any views on how AI and technology may help reduce the cost of care, either in the home or in care homes?
I think the Japanese are way out at the front of this wave as they can't look after their army of oldies either. Alot depends, of course, upon the assumed cleverness of the robots and how fast they will appear. At some point they'll do everything a human nurse can do and better and un-tiringly. I imagine the early wins will be in physically moving people (into out of bath etc), sensing of vital signs, and, weirdly or comfortingly, as mental health supports. There's going to be alot of not-so-lonely-as-before oldies chatting happily to artificial intelligences.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
There's a question here: many people on here are (in my view) rather over-optimistic about how AI and technology will change our lives.
Do any of these wise sages have any views on how AI and technology may help reduce the cost of care, either in the home or in care homes?
Not being a wise sage, I cannot offer a view. However, I did read that there is work going on in Japan to produce robots that will perform some care functions.
As always I think you are being overly pessimistic about how technology will change our lives in the next decade or so. Probably because you know a lot more about it than me.
Perhaps it's a topic we should park until we have a few drinks inside us.
So far two Tory MPs have gone on record to criticise the social care policy.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
Not particularly. I don't rule out a u-turn but we the voters now know that something must be done. Sufficient furore about which flavour will help to ensure the right solution. Plenty of time to amend the proposals before an Act is passed.
It will soon become clear if dementia has done for her. The mood music on the doorstep will change. Of course that is not what will happen. The grey vote isn't suddenly going to decide that Corbyn raiding them on IHT and nationalising everything whilst buggering up Brexit is what they've wanted all along. They will grit and gnash their false teeth, vote May and whinge relentlessly for five years.
I think May's trying to do what Blair did, ditch policies beloved of sections of the party's core vote on the assumption that those votes have nowhere else to go, as part of an appeal to a wider audience.
I can't see the solidly pro-Tory/May pensioners switching parties (or declining to vote) on the basis of this single issue. However, if the issue can be portrayed as a pattern of anti old-folk behaviour, that might change.
The papers seem dominated by the "May ditches Thatcherism" meme far more than a concentration on any particular issue, which will make CCHQ happy.
I'm sure the Evening Standard will attempt to redress that, their editor is probably still daydreaming about a triumphant return to rescue the party.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
We are always mistaking Peter the Punter for Peter from Putney, yet no-one ever mixes up Sean_F and SeanT. Discuss.
We will see when polling starts to come in in a day or two on the manifesto.
I am awaiting weekend phone calls to hear what the wider family think of the Dementia Tax. Has it got traction? I suspect it will have. I am pretty sure at least one member of the family will not be voting Conservative thanks to this social care change - if she has heard about it.
No this is going to be something we are going to have to get to grips with increasingly.
Medical science may keep us alive longer and indeed healthier longer ( 50 somethings a hundred years ago often look 70 odd to our eyes), but these kind of ethical and financial debates about what we do with cohorts of frail 90's and even 100's in very significant numbers is going to grow in significance.
We need a open our wallets more in some form (Tories note) and not shroud wave for effect at any hint of reform to the health and care system (Labour and others note). And yes, personally, I can see people wanting a "Swiss option" on the table ( religions of all types note). Though we need to be very cautious about how we get there.
On the heating allowance/care mantifesto furore:
I think the former is long over due but May should've spelled out exactly who will be affected and unaffected rather than leave a gap for McDonnell to "cry" about "ten million", which is rubbish I'm sure but he was given an open goal in fairness to him.
On dementia care - hmm. High marks for raising the debate that has to be had ( bit like the Lib Dems and their 1p for the NHS), and there are plusses and minuses from what I can see ( probably plays better up north on the numbers than London). But from a Tory perspective if you are explaining you're losing the argument. This was surely classic Green Paper discussion stuff and not three weeks before an election in a manifesto stuff. Thinking that has to be done but brave to do it now, when the opposition has just had a "free unicorns for all" manifesto because they don't think they're going to implement it.
I suspect they won't still, but withthree weeks to go and Labour's campaign is walking and chewing gum above expectations, (Abbott aside), the Tory's is poor, stumbling and making unnecessary heavy weather, and the Lib Dems clearly strategically flawed and hampered by being led by "TinTin for Brussels", Sturgeon is finding out what life is like, if not on the back foot quite, but certainly not leading a cavalry charge, and UKIP should just probably take the Swiss option I was mentioning for their own sake really.
It will soon become clear if dementia has done for her. The mood music on the doorstep will change. Of course that is not what will happen. The grey vote isn't suddenly going to decide that Corbyn raiding them on IHT and nationalising everything whilst buggering up Brexit is what they've wanted all along. They will grit and gnash their false teeth, vote May and whinge relentlessly for five years.
I think May's trying to do what Blair did, ditch policies beloved of sections of the party's core vote on the assumption that those votes have nowhere else to go, as part of an appeal to a wider audience.
I can't see the solidly pro-Tory/May pensioners switching parties (or declining to vote) on the basis of this single issue. However, if the issue can be portrayed as a pattern of anti old-folk behaviour, that might change.
The papers seem dominated by the "May ditches Thatcherism" meme far more than a concentration on any particular issue, which will make CCHQ happy.
I'm sure the Evening Standard will attempt to redress that, their editor is probably still daydreaming about a triumphant return to rescue the party.
WillS.
I expect the Tories to lose a few seats in the south to the LDs but gain many more from Labour in the north and midlands and wales as well as seats from the SNP in Scotland
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
Sincerest sympathies. That sounds grim.
The brother of a very good friend of mine suffers from a hideous neuro-degenerative disease, which has taken him from rich, happy, amiable father of three, to drooling semi-vegetable (I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it is the brutal truth) in a matter of three years. He's in his early 50s. Horrendous.
Dementia and its horrible acolytes touches many many people.
Someone I was at Uni with and shared a house with at College of Law for a year has recently been diagnosed with a viciously aggressive form of dementia. He will never come out of his care home.
He is 56.
He has a wife and kids who now have to live with the prospect of him being in that home, potentially for decades. Knowing the guy, I have no doubt that he would not want that prospect for either himself or his family. But there is currently no legal alternative.
If it should happen to me - and dementia is in my family - then I hope I get a chance to put my affairs in order and take the proverbial revolver into the library. I wouldn't want to endure it. I wouldn't want my closest to see me enduring it. And I wouldn't want to be a waste of vast resources in keeping me alive.
Personal view, and others, of strong faith perhaps, might find that deeply unacceptable. But it is my life and I would like to end it when I say so, not be kept alive by a system for who knows what purpose.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Yes, the system would be an Alternative to Voting.
I've heard the going rate for care homes in the nicer parts of Surrey is north of £1,200 per week which is up there with the cost of a week in a Vegas 5-star.
I've been so fortunate with my parents - Mum required some home care before she died and so far Dad hasn't needed too much apart from a little home help.
If this was an easy problem to solve, we'd have solved it by now. I'm not sure rushing out a policy in the midst of an abrupt GE campaign was a good idea. The whole area is complex and needs much wider consultation and input. There's obviously the perspective of the person and their family but the local authority who puts the care package together has a stake in this in terms of trying to manage its budgets and future provision.
I suspect there will be a new or extended cottage industry around trying to avoid paying the fees too soon. The process seems to rely on increasing property values meeting the care home fees but how will that work from an accounting perspective for both local authorities and care home providers ? Presumably the local authority will have to pay the fees up front and then wait until the person's death to redeem the rest of the fees from the estate.
At least this has started a discussion - that needs to be broadened away from the specifics so families and individuals need to think about and plan for care provision.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Quasi AV.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
I'm a perpetually-depressive Tory (hence the name), but even I think the panic on here has been overblown. We do need to put Labour back on the defensive though.
So am interested in what people think:
Will the mythical Crosby attack machine swing into obvious action with three weeks to go, will it wait till the last 1-2, or will it just stick to below-the-radar stuff, e.g. Facebook ads?
And is the machine actually any good and does it have a fraction of the power attributed to it?
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
That's how we viewed poor health before the NHS. The US still views it that way, unlike all other developed countries.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Quasi AV.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
Round 3 - the losing candidates are rounded up and shot.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
There's a question here: many people on here are (in my view) rather over-optimistic about how AI and technology will change our lives.
Do any of these wise sages have any views on how AI and technology may help reduce the cost of care, either in the home or in care homes?
I think the Japanese are way out at the front of this wave as they can't look after their army of oldies either. Alot depends, of course, upon the assumed cleverness of the robots and how fast they will appear. At some point they'll do everything a human nurse can do and better and un-tiringly. I imagine the early wins will be in physically moving people (into out of bath etc), sensing of vital signs, and, weirdly or comfortingly, as mental health supports. There's going to be alot of not-so-lonely-as-before oldies chatting happily to artificial intelligences.
In my opinion the next big thing will be automatic sensing of health vitals and looking for warning signs of problems - although the problem is exceptionally difficult, especially if you wish to avoid too many false positives.
As an example, friends of ours are associated with this company, and there are other companies exploring similar avenues: https://www.sensium.co.uk/
Getting a prototype is easy; developing a reliable production system is another.
On another point: one of the problems with old age is loneliness. Will increasing access to the Internet help with this? When my generation get into their eighties or nineties, will we all be sitting in bed happily discussing on PB whether Labour is going to get it's first PM after Brown?
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Quasi AV.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
If this was an easy problem to solve, we'd have solved it by now. I'm not sure rushing out a policy in the midst of an abrupt GE campaign was a good idea.
There is never a good time to do it.
I think part of the reason its in the manifesto is so they CAN do something about it. Look at the problems Hammond got into with NI as the manfesto tied his hand.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
No, because one is not the other.
Seems like a 'because I say so' type of answer. OK, so why should they be treated so differently?
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
We are always mistaking Peter the Punter for Peter from Putney, yet no-one ever mixes up Sean_F and SeanT. Discuss.
We will see when polling starts to come in in a day or two on the manifesto.
Do Mori now run polls on the visibility and cut through of the two Seans?
I've heard the going rate for care homes in the nicer parts of Surrey is north of £1,200 per week which is up there with the cost of a week in a Vegas 5-star.
I've been so fortunate with my parents - Mum required some home care before she died and so far Dad hasn't needed too much apart from a little home help.
If this was an easy problem to solve, we'd have solved it by now. I'm not sure rushing out a policy in the midst of an abrupt GE campaign was a good idea. The whole area is complex and needs much wider consultation and input. There's obviously the perspective of the person and their family but the local authority who puts the care package together has a stake in this in terms of trying to manage its budgets and future provision.
I suspect there will be a new or extended cottage industry around trying to avoid paying the fees too soon. The process seems to rely on increasing property values meeting the care home fees but how will that work from an accounting perspective for both local authorities and care home providers ? Presumably the local authority will have to pay the fees up front and then wait until the person's death to redeem the rest of the fees from the estate.
At least this has started a discussion - that needs to be broadened away from the specifics so families and individuals need to think about and plan for care provision.
One problem is that the cost is so expensive and yet many of the carers are on the minimum wage or just above.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Quasi AV.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
That sounds awfully French.
And nothing like AV.
Shush, the bottom candidates are eliminated, and their votes are effectively reallocated to the others until one candidates gets 50% plus.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
It matters not why you're in the care home, only that you're living there.
Clinical treatment, for any disease, is and continues to be available on the NHS.
Out of interest how is this going to work if parents start shifting money and homes/assets eto to children well before they need the care.
I seem to remember when my grandad died 20 odd years go, and my grandma had to go into a home, my dad and his brother did shifting of money and signing of houses over (which you can't so easily do now).
I don't think anybody thinks the dementia tax will be the end of Theresa May, but it's the latest in a string of unforced errors, coupled with a gravity-defying performance in the polls by Labour that have led me to radically revise my predictions (and bets) from a Con majority of around 150 to somewhere within to the 50-100 range.
Dementia tax. Dementia tax. Just say it out loud once or twice. Slogan-wise it seems very likely to cut through and spread by word of mouth and social media. The next round of polling will be very interesting.
For all that Labour shouted Bedroom Tax incessantly during 2010-15, what impact did it really make in the end? Now, this might be different because it's happening three weeks from the election rather than three years from it. But ultimately, the idea that people pay for their care is one that most are used to and accept (not Lucas obviously, for whom the banned or relocated businesses will pay for everything).
It strikes me as the kind of marketing that is a bit too clever by half: the slogan sounds superficially good but when you drill down, it doesn't make sense without a whole lot of explanation.
The thing about the bedroom tax is it wasn't a tax, it was a reduction in benefit. The dementia tax is an actual tax in the sense of being presented with a bill when you die.
The effect of this is threefold, the oldies will worry about what they will be leaving behind for their kids, the middle aged will worry about their inheritance, and wavering voters in working class constituencies where the Tories are looking to make headway will see this and think 'I can't vote for the nasty party' even if they are not personally affected by the tax.
Unlike the bedroom "tax" the biggest problem here is that with the bedroom tax, you knew for sure if it affected you. And the number it actually affected was very low.
Dementia terrifies most people, it is uncertain and random and can happen to any of us at any time. A "dementia tax" potentially affects all of us.
Brave? Courageous, as Sir Humphrey might say.
Maybe. I'm certainly not dismissing it.
That said, it's not a tax, it's a charge - there is a difference and I think the public can recognise it. The key question though is whether people do feel threatened by it. Speaking myself, as someone heading towards middle-age and with two parents of about 70, both of whom are in good health, do I feel threatened about my inheritance? To be honest, no. I don't view it as an entitlement as such and if their wealth has to be spent looking after them in their old age, so be it. They earned the money. Obviously, I'd rather not be in the position of having to choose but that's not a call we get to make.
I'm not sure if this is brilliant expectation setting on the part of Labour, poor expectation setting on the part of the Spectator or an attempt at a headline grabbing smokescreen on the part of CCHQ.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
So, should it be dependent on how much care you need and how long it is likely to take you to die? I guess that is exactly what the proposals will mean.
I've heard the going rate for care homes in the nicer parts of Surrey is north of £1,200 per week which is up there with the cost of a week in a Vegas 5-star.
I've been so fortunate with my parents - Mum required some home care before she died and so far Dad hasn't needed too much apart from a little home help.
If this was an easy problem to solve, we'd have solved it by now. I'm not sure rushing out a policy in the midst of an abrupt GE campaign was a good idea. The whole area is complex and needs much wider consultation and input. There's obviously the perspective of the person and their family but the local authority who puts the care package together has a stake in this in terms of trying to manage its budgets and future provision.
I suspect there will be a new or extended cottage industry around trying to avoid paying the fees too soon. The process seems to rely on increasing property values meeting the care home fees but how will that work from an accounting perspective for both local authorities and care home providers ? Presumably the local authority will have to pay the fees up front and then wait until the person's death to redeem the rest of the fees from the estate.
At least this has started a discussion - that needs to be broadened away from the specifics so families and individuals need to think about and plan for care provision.
One problem is that the cost is so expensive and yet many of the carers are on the minimum wage or just above.
Dillnot did a lot of work on some of these issues. Giving a lifetime cap on contributions gives people some sense of the limits and what they might be saving towards. If there is a limit - say £100K then people could insure up to that limit. It seems nobody could come up with a way to cover the State's end of the deal (i.e. funding those who didn't have any money and those who had breached the cap).
A good summary of where things were last year before Mayism took control:
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
So, should it be dependent on how much care you need and how long it is likely to take you to die? I guess that is exactly what the proposals will mean.
Clinical care, or pallative care? The two are rather different.
predictions (and bets) from a Con majority of around 150 to somewhere within to the 50-100 range.
Dementia tax. Dementia tax. Just say it out loud once or twice. Slogan-wise it seems very likely to cut through and spread by word of mouth and social media. The next round of polling will be very interesting.
For all that Labour shouted Bedroom Tax incessantly during 2010-15, what impact did it really make in the end? Now, this might be different because it's happening three weeks from the election rather than three years from it. But ultimately, the idea that people pay for their care is one that most are used to and accept (not Lucas obviously, for whom the banned or relocated businesses will pay for everything).
It strikes me as the kind of marketing that is a bit too clever by half: the slogan sounds superficially good but when you drill down, it doesn't make sense without a whole lot of explanation.
The thing about the bedroom tax is it wasn't a tax, it was a reduction in benefit. The dementia tax is an actual tax in the sense of being presented with a bill when you die.
The effect of this is threefold, the oldies will worry about what they will be leaving behind for their kids, the middle aged will worry about their inheritance, and wavering voters in working class constituencies where the Tories are looking to make headway will see this and think 'I can't vote for the nasty party' even if they are not personally affected by the tax.
Unlike the bedroom "tax" the biggest problem here is that with the bedroom tax, you knew for sure if it affected you. And the number it actually affected was very low.
Dementia terrifies most people, it is uncertain and random and can happen to any of us at any time. A "dementia tax" potentially affects all of us.
Brave? Courageous, as Sir Humphrey might say.
Maybe. I'm certainly not dismissing it.
That said, it's not a tax, it's a charge - there is a difference and I think the public can recognise it. The key question though is whether people do feel threatened by it. Speaking myself, as someone heading towards middle-age and with two parents of about 70, both of whom are in good health, do I feel threatened about my inheritance? To be honest, no. I don't view it as an entitlement as such and if their wealth has to be spent looking after them in their old age, so be it. They earned the money. Obviously, I'd rather not be in the position of having to choose but that's not a call we get to make.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
Not sure that worked so well last time.
Didn't end too happily for the dictator either.
Don’t see any Senators in open toed sandals and bed linen lasting long in soggy cold London.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
You are a young fogey who prefers the company of sheep to people, yet you still wax lyrical about our AMAZING restaurants. If you profess not to like cities, stay in the countryside and eat bumpkin food washed down with yokel cider.
And that ladies and gentlemen is one of the reasons the EU referendum was lost.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Which gets at the heart of the matter. It's a mistake to say that voters want a free lunch, not because they don't - if offered, of course they'll take it - but because anyone whose support is necessary in a political system will find themselves at the centre of a bidding auction. And those capable of awarding themselves and their support a free lunch will tend to do so.
A dictatorship would just result in a different set of client groups having to be appeased.
So far two Tory MPs have gone on record to criticise the social care policy.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
Which two
Have asked.
To put it bluntly, every Tory PPC should be out there today defending the policy, and defending their party for having the balls to try and tackle the issue.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Nah. I would have a written constitution so he or she couldn't do that.
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
Not sure that worked so well last time.
Didn't end too happily for the dictator either.
Don’t see any Senators in open toed sandals and bed linen lasting long in soggy cold London.
The Senate will be moved out of London, up North.
London is far too expensive a place to live and work.
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
She wears her small minded provincialism with disgusting pride.
Why is "provincial" a bad thing?
And what views and opinions connote "provincialism", and why?
Voting SNP is provincial. Are SNP voters to be scorned?
At some point we may have to consider the extraordinary possibility that the Tories might actually contrive to....... lose.
Clearly this is very unlikely but this is very definitely Wobbly Friday.
Speak for yourself.
I'm expecting a manifesto bounce.
Few metropolitan posters on here get Mrs May (Al Meeks is an exception) - she isn't appealing to you, she is appealing to people who live outside of cities and don't really like them very much.....
I get Mrs May. I get her appeal to non-Londoners. I get her appeal to small c conservatives who quite liked Early Blair.
She appeals to my Mum.
People like my Mum will not like this manifesto. Is my guess. But I could be wrong.
And now, to work, seeing as I won't be getting an inheritance.
It's nice to inherit lots of money. But, is it a wise use of public money, at a time of austerity, to ensure that people inherit more than £100,000?
Some people will be pissed off. Others will recognise that social care will become unaffordable without changes.
It would be fairer to raise the money via an income tax rise rather than penalise those unlucky enough to be victims of dementia.
No it wouldn't, because it would be an extra imposition on voters of working age, who've borne the brunt of austerity so far.
We're told that pensioners now are earning enough to pay income tax. Those of working age may or may not be lucky enough to not have parents suffering from dementia. Income tax spreads the burden and is preferable to the 'Dementia Tax'.
It's a burden which is better paid out of capital than out of income. What's wrong with providing for one's old age out of the wealth which one has accumulated during one's lifetime?
Does that same argument apply if you are unlucky enough to suffer from cancer rather than dementia.
You don't need full time cancer care except for your final weeks if it cannot be cured
So, should it be dependent on how much care you need and how long it is likely to take you to die? I guess that is exactly what the proposals will mean.
Clinical care, or pallative care? The two are rather different.
Palliative care is needed for many diseases including cancer.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
Sincerest sympathies. That sounds grim.
The brother of a very good friend of mine suffers from a hideous neuro-degenerative disease, which has taken him from rich, happy, amiable father of three, to drooling semi-vegetable (I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it is the brutal truth) in a matter of three years. He's in his early 50s. Horrendous.
Dementia and its horrible acolytes touches many many people.
Someone I was at Uni with and shared a house with at College of Law for a year has recently been diagnosed with a viciously aggressive form of dementia. He will never come out of his care home.
He is 56.
He has a wife and kids who now have to live with the prospect of him being in that home, potentially for decades. Knowing the guy, I have no doubt that he would not want that prospect for either himself or his family. But there is currently no legal alternative.
If it should happen to me - and dementia is in my family - then I hope I get a chance to put my affairs in order and take the proverbial revolver into the library. I wouldn't want to endure it. I wouldn't want my closest to see me enduring it. And I wouldn't want to be a waste of vast resources in keeping me alive.
Personal view, and others, of strong faith perhaps, might find that deeply unacceptable. But it is my life and I would like to end it when I say so, not be kept alive by a system for who knows what purpose.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
Would it be an AV election?
Quasi AV.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
That sounds awfully French.
And nothing like AV.
Shush, the bottom candidates are eliminated, and their votes are effectively reallocated to the others until one candidates gets 50% plus.
How is that not AV?
Because you only have one vote per round? And you can't rank your preferences?
The Labour Party were in power for 13 years and did absolutely nothing about Social Care, even though it was well known it was going to become a massive problem in the years ahead.
All political parties have lacked the cojones to deal with the really big issues over the years but least this is a start, imperfect though it may be.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
And the first decree issued by said dictator would be to make himself dictator for life. Well, I suppose it would solve the voter problem.
Which gets at the heart of the matter. It's a mistake to say that voters want a free lunch, not because they don't - if offered, of course they'll take it - but because anyone whose support is necessary in a political system will find themselves at the centre of a bidding auction. And those capable of awarding themselves and their support a free lunch will tend to do so.
A dictatorship would just result in a different set of client groups having to be appeased.
I'm not sure it was entirely serious discussion :-)
But of course you're right. Even Kim Jong Un has his client group (In his case the armed forces, who get whatever they want).
Out of interest how is this going to work if parents start shifting money and homes/assets eto to children well before they need the care.
I seem to remember when my grandad died 20 odd years go, and my grandma had to go into a home, my dad and his brother did shifting of money and signing of houses over (which you can't so easily do now).
It's more difficult now, overt avoidance has been clamped down on. Safest way to do it is for the oldies to actually downsize, and gift to their family well before they might need care. Also, things like grandparents paying for school fees, holidays and other intangibles.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
My father lived in a care home for the last two and a half years of his life. He died last year at 62. He suffered from a rare condition called corticobasal degeneration, the outcome of which was very similar to early-onset Alzheimer's, with lewy bodies. He was diagnosed at 56.
Anyway, the care costs were £580 per week. So do the math on that. It wouldn't take long to rack up £100k. And I know some of the people on his floor have been in there over a decade.
Which illuminates the other worrying point, normally hidden behind the dementia curtain, that caring for old people is costing an absolute fucking fortune.... and it is rising and rising.
Sincerest sympathies. That sounds grim.
The brother of a very good friend of mine suffers from a hideous neuro-degenerative disease, which has taken him from rich, happy, amiable father of three, to drooling semi-vegetable (I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it is the brutal truth) in a matter of three years. He's in his early 50s. Horrendous.
Dementia and its horrible acolytes touches many many people.
Someone I was at Uni with and shared a house with at College of Law for a year has recently been diagnosed with a viciously aggressive form of dementia. He will never come out of his care home.
He is 56.
He has a wife and kids who now have to live with the prospect of him being in that home, potentially for decades. Knowing the guy, I have no doubt that he would not want that prospect for either himself or his family. But there is currently no legal alternative.
If it should happen to me - and dementia is in my family - then I hope I get a chance to put my affairs in order and take the proverbial revolver into the library. I wouldn't want to endure it. I wouldn't want my closest to see me enduring it. And I wouldn't want to be a waste of vast resources in keeping me alive.
Personal view, and others, of strong faith perhaps, might find that deeply unacceptable. But it is my life and I would like to end it when I say so, not be kept alive by a system for who knows what purpose.
Well said Sir.
Agreed. The chances of the UK adopting controlled and regulated euthanasia while the religious Mrs May is at the helm = 0.
Most voters want a free lunch. They want high quality services and low taxes.
Government would be a hell of a lot easier if voters could be abolished.
A directly elected Dictator, elected for a 20 year term would sort out this problem without having to deal with things like the voters/general elections every few years.
I'm a perpetually-depressive Tory (hence the name), but even I think the panic on here has been overblown. We do need to put Labour back on the defensive though.
So am interested in what people think:
Will the mythical Crosby attack machine swing into obvious action with three weeks to go, will it wait till the last 1-2, or will it just stick to below-the-radar stuff, e.g. Facebook ads?
And is the machine actually any good and does it have a fraction of the power attributed to it?
The best adverts are those that the prospect sees immediately before making a purchase decision. I think they'll leave the attack stuff to the last couple of weeks, or even the last week. The focus of all the campaigns is (or should be) on establishing enough credibility with the voters that they'll actually listen to the final-week messages and not dismiss them.
Remember, the election campaign is all about re-enforcing existing biases rather than establishing new ones. Nearly everyone has already decided who to vote for, even if they don't consciously know that they have.
... There's going to be alot of not-so-lonely-as-before oldies chatting happily to artificial intelligences.
Cats, Sir, well pets in general but cats take a lot less looking after. Lots of elderly people, and some not so elderly, spend a lot of time talking to their pet and various studies have shown that having a furry friend around reduces loneliness and adds, sometimes even gives a meaning, to life, even as death approaches. A local hospice has a couple of cats on the premises solely for that purpose and I know of one other which has a scheme whereby local people are encouraged to bring in their dogs to chat with the patients.
Who the flip are these idiots going on about 'hundreds of thousands of pounds' of dementia care charges? How many people are going to live the 25 years at home needing care to run up this sort of bill? Hysterical nonsense. Greedy middle class arse hats annoyed they won't get the full monty. And these Wealthy pensioners with 100s of 1000s to lose. They gonna go Corbyn? Nope.
Typical care home costs are £35 - £50k a year. You would need to live in one for not 25 but 2.5 years to run up a bill of hundreds of thousands.
Comments
Anyway, I'm always glass half full despite the morbidity and the indiscriminate disasters that could befall us at any moment.
It's Friday, the sun's out and I've got cash on the hip. Life is pretty good.
Let's go get a haircut.
Have fun.
Within four years of 1966 though he was replaced by Heath who had zero charisma but was clearly a One Nation Tory and didn't repel the 'centre ground'. He won a similar percent to what May will get.
* In Gyles Brandreth's diaries, he and other Tories soon spotted in 1994 that Blair was 'one of us'. I haven't a clue how Blair ended up in a 'left wing' party; he seems to belong in a Centre Party or the Christian Democrats.
https://twitter.com/paulmasonnews/status/865124467776917505
WillS.
It is neither fair, nor economically sensible, to increase taxes on income, in order to maximise the amount of capital that some lucky heirs will inherit.
Sometimes it is the job of government to lead, not follow. Maggie knew this.
The effect of this is threefold, the oldies will worry about what they will be leaving behind for their kids, the middle aged will worry about their inheritance, and wavering voters in working class constituencies where the Tories are looking to make headway will see this and think 'I can't vote for the nasty party' even if they are not personally affected by the tax.
Unlike the bedroom "tax" the biggest problem here is that with the bedroom tax, you knew for sure if it affected you. And the number it actually affected was very low.
Dementia terrifies most people, it is uncertain and random and can happen to any of us at any time. A "dementia tax" potentially affects all of us.
Brave? Courageous, as Sir Humphrey might say.
The little children from the loser parties might throw the odd tantrum. The proper politicians are trying to solve a major problem.
As always I think you are being overly pessimistic about how technology will change our lives in the next decade or so. Probably because you know a lot more about it than me.
That tells you this isn't going down well with voters.
This launch was shown live on the Parliament Channel and SKY but not a peep on the BBC. They were talking to their own correspondent Hugh Pym about the NHS and then some item about video games.
It seems chatting to their own correspondents and is more important than the PM.
I can't see the solidly pro-Tory/May pensioners switching parties (or declining to vote) on the basis of this single issue. However, if the issue can be portrayed as a pattern of anti old-folk behaviour, that might change.
The papers seem dominated by the "May ditches Thatcherism" meme far more than a concentration on any particular issue, which will make CCHQ happy.
I'm sure the Evening Standard will attempt to redress that, their editor is probably still daydreaming about a triumphant return to rescue the party.
WillS.
I am awaiting weekend phone calls to hear what the wider family think of the Dementia Tax. Has it got traction? I suspect it will have. I am pretty sure at least one member of the family will not be voting Conservative thanks to this social care change - if she has heard about it.
No this is going to be something we are going to have to get to grips with increasingly.
Medical science may keep us alive longer and indeed healthier longer ( 50 somethings a hundred years ago often look 70 odd to our eyes), but these kind of ethical and financial debates about what we do with cohorts of frail 90's and even 100's in very significant numbers is going to grow in significance.
We need a open our wallets more in some form (Tories note) and not shroud wave for effect at any hint of reform to the health and care system (Labour and others note). And yes, personally, I can see people wanting a "Swiss option" on the table ( religions of all types note). Though we need to be very cautious about how we get there.
On the heating allowance/care mantifesto furore:
I think the former is long over due but May should've spelled out exactly who will be affected and unaffected rather than leave a gap for McDonnell to "cry" about "ten million", which is rubbish I'm sure but he was given an open goal in fairness to him.
On dementia care - hmm. High marks for raising the debate that has to be had ( bit like the Lib Dems and their 1p for the NHS), and there are plusses and minuses from what I can see ( probably plays better up north on the numbers than London). But from a Tory perspective if you are explaining you're losing the argument. This was surely classic Green Paper discussion stuff and not three weeks before an election in a manifesto stuff. Thinking that has to be done but brave to do it now, when the opposition has just had a "free unicorns for all" manifesto because they don't think they're going to implement it.
I suspect they won't still, but withthree weeks to go and Labour's campaign is walking and chewing gum above expectations, (Abbott aside), the Tory's is poor, stumbling and making unnecessary heavy weather, and the Lib Dems clearly strategically flawed and hampered by being led by "TinTin for Brussels", Sturgeon is finding out what life is like, if not on the back foot quite, but certainly not leading a cavalry charge, and UKIP should just probably take the Swiss option I was mentioning for their own sake really.
Inspired I am not.
He is 56.
He has a wife and kids who now have to live with the prospect of him being in that home, potentially for decades. Knowing the guy, I have no doubt that he would not want that prospect for either himself or his family. But there is currently no legal alternative.
If it should happen to me - and dementia is in my family - then I hope I get a chance to put my affairs in order and take the proverbial revolver into the library. I wouldn't want to endure it. I wouldn't want my closest to see me enduring it. And I wouldn't want to be a waste of vast resources in keeping me alive.
Personal view, and others, of strong faith perhaps, might find that deeply unacceptable. But it is my life and I would like to end it when I say so, not be kept alive by a system for who knows what purpose.
Only 21 days to go....
Average across all polls in May:
Cons 47.1%
Lab 29.7%
Lib Dems 8.9%
Ukip 5.7%"
I've been so fortunate with my parents - Mum required some home care before she died and so far Dad hasn't needed too much apart from a little home help.
If this was an easy problem to solve, we'd have solved it by now. I'm not sure rushing out a policy in the midst of an abrupt GE campaign was a good idea. The whole area is complex and needs much wider consultation and input. There's obviously the perspective of the person and their family but the local authority who puts the care package together has a stake in this in terms of trying to manage its budgets and future provision.
I suspect there will be a new or extended cottage industry around trying to avoid paying the fees too soon. The process seems to rely on increasing property values meeting the care home fees but how will that work from an accounting perspective for both local authorities and care home providers ? Presumably the local authority will have to pay the fees up front and then wait until the person's death to redeem the rest of the fees from the estate.
At least this has started a discussion - that needs to be broadened away from the specifics so families and individuals need to think about and plan for care provision.
Two stage election.
You need 100,000 nominations from the voters to stand.
Round 1 - As many as have met the nomination requirement can stand. The top two go through to second round.
Round 2 - Held two weeks after round 1, whoever wins the most votes becomes Dictator
So am interested in what people think:
Will the mythical Crosby attack machine swing into obvious action with three weeks to go, will it wait till the last 1-2, or will it just stick to below-the-radar stuff, e.g. Facebook ads?
And is the machine actually any good and does it have a fraction of the power attributed to it?
Clegg might be safe now though...
As an example, friends of ours are associated with this company, and there are other companies exploring similar avenues:
https://www.sensium.co.uk/
Getting a prototype is easy; developing a reliable production system is another.
On another point: one of the problems with old age is loneliness. Will increasing access to the Internet help with this? When my generation get into their eighties or nineties, will we all be sitting in bed happily discussing on PB whether Labour is going to get it's first PM after Brown?
And nothing like AV.
I think part of the reason its in the manifesto is so they CAN do something about it. Look at the problems Hammond got into with NI as the manfesto tied his hand.
OK, so why should they be treated so differently?
There'd be a Senate, replete with Senators in togas and sandals to keep a certain check on the Dictator.
How is that not AV?
Didn't end too happily for the dictator either.
Clinical treatment, for any disease, is and continues to be available on the NHS.
I seem to remember when my grandad died 20 odd years go, and my grandma had to go into a home, my dad and his brother did shifting of money and signing of houses over (which you can't so easily do now).
*Well candidate now that Parliament has been dissolved
That said, it's not a tax, it's a charge - there is a difference and I think the public can recognise it. The key question though is whether people do feel threatened by it. Speaking myself, as someone heading towards middle-age and with two parents of about 70, both of whom are in good health, do I feel threatened about my inheritance? To be honest, no. I don't view it as an entitlement as such and if their wealth has to be spent looking after them in their old age, so be it. They earned the money. Obviously, I'd rather not be in the position of having to choose but that's not a call we get to make.
WillS
A good summary of where things were last year before Mayism took control:
http://www.commissiononcare.org/2016/08/18/five-years-since-dilnot-are-we-back-to-square-one/
The same mistakes won't be made.
A dictatorship would just result in a different set of client groups having to be appeased.
London is far too expensive a place to live and work.
This is for cheaper but BETTER government.
Voting SNP is provincial. Are SNP voters to be scorned?
https://twitter.com/telepolitics/status/865555431652904961
And you can't rank your preferences?
All political parties have lacked the cojones to deal with the really big issues over the years but least this is a start, imperfect though it may be.
But of course you're right. Even Kim Jong Un has his client group (In his case the armed forces, who get whatever they want).
I think Mr @Scrapheap_as_was is the expert at that sort of thing.
"This paper is so bad it is not even wrong."
Remember, the election campaign is all about re-enforcing existing biases rather than establishing new ones. Nearly everyone has already decided who to vote for, even if they don't consciously know that they have.
WillS.