Reply As I said, good luck with it. There is a reason why Lib Dems might really be reduced to taxi numbers. Policies like this.. Thank you for reminding me why I could never lend my vote to the LIb Dems.
Why would you think I'm a LibDem?
I'm a six percenter. I believe that the state should be limited to 6% of GDP. But I also think that taxes should encourage work and discourage misallocation of capital. I would prefer to largely eliminate income taxes, and replace them with something like a gross assets levy.
Maggie at one point had a target of 40% didn't she?
I agree with the general sentiment that a small state is a better, more efficient one. I'm not really with you on asset taxes, or land taxes as rkrkrk mentioned - I've always thought that a single flat rate on all income might have attractions, or perhaps there are good things about a single flat rate on all spending - I generally like the idea of a simpler tax system of whatever stripe.
Bit sleepy, but I do agree with the sentiment of the article mostly (I fear it may be worse for May than she suspects).
On savings: we already have an incredibly low saving rate and thanks to that oaf Carney wetting the bed and cutting rates from historically low to a new historic low they're hardly encouraged by interest rates.
Even if you believe ISAs are a legitimate target, work to encourage saving elsewhere or wait until interest rates are normal, otherwise the mood music is all about spending because if you save, the government will come for it.
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
In general, I consider this proposal to be a marked improvement on where we are at the moment.
Having recently been on a cruise on the Queen Elizabeth, I compared costs and it is very similar to a care home. For that you get top quality hotel accommodation, excellent food and entertainment, new places to see and good company. Two doctors on board and a mortuary with two places. So that's my plan.
There was an elderly New Jersey widow who took up residence for several years on the QE2 as she worked out it would be cheaper than a nursing home - which eventually she had to return to when the QE2 retired and she became too infirm:
In general, I consider this proposal to be a marked improvement on where we are at the moment.
Having recently been on a cruise on the Queen Elizabeth, I compared costs and it is very similar to a care home. For that you get top quality hotel accommodation, excellent food and entertainment, new places to see and good company. Two doctors on board and a mortuary with two places. So that's my plan.
There was an elderly New Jersey widow who took up residence for several years on the QE2 as she worked out it would be cheaper than a nursing home - which eventually she had to return to when the QE2 retired and she became too infirm:
I took my mother on a Crystal cruise a few years ago, and they made a big fuss over a 90 year old American woman who was on one of their cruises for the hundredth time. They said how many days she had cruised with them over the previous ten years and I worked out it was somewhere beteeen two thirds and three quarters of the time.
I went to a hustings last night, I counted just over 100 there, 4 below the age of 40, 75% of retirement age. This despite the Labour Candidate being in her 20s. The libdem and Ukip candidates sent a replacement, couldn't even be bothered to turn up and ask people to vote for them.
Apathy in the audience, dull sound bites from the candidates, if this is any indicator (which is doubtful) the tories will win a huge majority.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
Easy to promise things/make policy if you are never going to be in Govt. No-one is going to vote for tax increases.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
Easy to promise things/make policy if you are never going to be in Govt. No-one is going to vote for tax increases.
Correction - everyone is going to vote for tax increases, mostly hoping they fall on someone else.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
'The Conservatives declined to say yesterday how < insert issue du jour >, saying the details would form part of the Brexit negotiations'
Superbly informed article. In political terms, I think the problem is that the Conservatives are dumping this policy on the public in an election so they are coming to it cold. So their focus is simply on your inheritance being eaten up rather than on the government ensuring you can afford the long term care you need.
I don't see why there shouldn't also be an insurance option if you don't want to risk most of your inheritance being taken. The insurance premium could be taken from your estate.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?
Tut Tut Alan, you joined the great unwashed Tory liars brigade. PS: Ani ful nos hour sistem is grate
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
Easy to promise things/make policy if you are never going to be in Govt. No-one is going to vote for tax increases.
Correction - everyone is going to vote for tax increases, mostly hoping they fall on someone else.
Indeed. Actually I agree with the Lib Dems on the 1p. Still won't vote for Farron though way too many things I disagree with, but credit where credit is due.
OT very well written header. Let's face it May could threaten to burn down retirement homes and tories would still vote for her such is their loathing of Corbyn, she's simply reaching out to floaters.
A very dull and predictable campaign, I maintain 50% for May, 60% turnout.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
Easy to promise things/make policy if you are never going to be in Govt. No-one is going to vote for tax increases.
And there lies the problem - we all want first-class public service but we don't want to pay for them.
I commend the LDs for their honesty though the the 1p increase is rather timid considering what is required.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?
Tut Tut Alan, you joined the great unwashed Tory liars brigade. PS: Ani ful nos hour sistem is grate
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Good morning Jack and good morning PBers
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
Owen Paterson, the former Conservative Environment secretary, said he interpreted the manifesto as committing the UK to taking control of waters up to 200 miles from the coast.
He told The Daily Telegraph: “I am delighted to see it confirmed that we will have a modern fishing policy that will have an EEZ 200 miles off the coastline.”
Excellent thread Mr Meeks. I wonder if last night's hysterical posters have calmed down?
You getting tired and emotional and talking about yourself again
tbf it was mainly SeanT simultaneously suggesting Labour might actually win and telling everyone else to keep calm...
But that's SeanT for you. He predicted both sides would win the Indy referendum so he could truthfully say when the result was announced that he'd been right.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?
Tut Tut Alan, you joined the great unwashed Tory liars brigade.
Scotland's scores for maths, reading and science all declined in the latest set of Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) figures.
Education Secretary John Swinney said the results made uncomfortable reading.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
Labour have promised far more than could ever be recovered from those earning over £80k.
Owen Paterson, the former Conservative Environment secretary, said he interpreted the manifesto as committing the UK to taking control of waters up to 200 miles from the coast.
He told The Daily Telegraph: “I am delighted to see it confirmed that we will have a modern fishing policy that will have an EEZ 200 miles off the coastline.”
Is this a new wheeze from Sir Lynton Crosby? Have a former minister give a favourable reading of a vague manifesto paragraph so that no current minister commits the government to anything at all.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
The LibDem approach is even better, more transparent and honest, and the extra 1p on income tax stands a much better chance of actually bringing in the extra tax revenue than does Labour's policy of trying to get business and a few high earners to pay for everything.
The LDs are led by an even more incompetent leader than JC. Their policies are daft (trying to reverse Brexit) and dangerous (legalisation of cannabis). I expect them to make a net seat loss on 8/6 and they might win as few seats as UKIP. It may be bye bye to the Lie Dems.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Good morning Jack and good morning PBers
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
Another PB Old Contemptible returns ....
May I cordially wish you and your sandals good cheer in these sad days for the Whigigsh Yellow Peril. Though I hope we find the House of Tabman in good heart and health.
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.
In terms of desired outcome, what is the difference between an aim and a target?
or between a hope, an aspiration and a categorical promise. Your point is?
I merely seek a non-trivial answer.
I guess I was struggling with your question, since the answer would appear to be straightforward: the desired outcome is the same; what varies is the degree of commitment.
Interesting that Ashcroft's detailed model identifies that the Tory majority goes up by a significant 50 seats if turnout matches the 2015 GE rather than people's reported likelihood to vote (the latter being close to 2016 referendum turnout).
Since it isn't obvious why turnout should be particularly high this time (save for a few anecdotes of first-time referendum voters converted into always-voters), this probably gives the Tories a further edge.
Based solely on non-PB conversations, I reckon turnout will be down at close to 2001 levels. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has even mentioned the election to me, and we're less than three weeks away.
Respected PB punters Philp Thompson and Richard Nabavi say otherwise, Robert, but I'm with you on this. Under 60% is possible and under 65% distincty probable, imo.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
In which case Ashcroft's analysis suggests that the actual Tory vote share is understated by the polls and the actual majority could easily be 50 greater than what the polls suggest.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
But then as Lloyd George put it, they also like sheep. It doesn't mean they want to be governed by them.
In terms of desired outcome, what is the difference between an aim and a target?
or between a hope, an aspiration and a categorical promise. Your point is?
I merely seek a non-trivial answer.
I guess I was struggling with your question, since the answer would appear to be straightforward: the desired outcome is the same; what varies is the degree of commitment.
Thank you. So can we take it that the Tories have a low commitment to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands?
Mr. Punter, the only market I could find on that was Betfair Sportsbook. 4/6 on under 63%, but the odds are a bit mean and I think they've got the point more or less right.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Good morning Jack and good morning PBers
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
My hope also - did think about joining the rump Liberal party to get things going. Best wishes to you and all the other fossil PBers.
In general, I consider this proposal to be a marked improvement on where we are at the moment.
Agreed, Sean.
It will be interesting to see how Conservative posters split on this. The proposals carry clear electoral risk. Will they accept that as a price for an interesting and potentially progressive policy that is very likely to be implemented in the next Parliament?
Judging by last nite's thread, I should say they are pretty evenly divided.
In terms of desired outcome, what is the difference between an aim and a target?
or between a hope, an aspiration and a categorical promise. Your point is?
I merely seek a non-trivial answer.
I guess I was struggling with your question, since the answer would appear to be straightforward: the desired outcome is the same; what varies is the degree of commitment.
Thank you. So can we take it that the Tories have a low commitment to reducing immigration to the tens of thousands?
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs breakfast of a political leader and party.
I also think that Britons are naturally truculent, they won't nessecarily vote for what Nanny tells them.
As someone who has never concealed his loathing of May, I do need to concede that her "dementia tax" is the right policy, though whether it is received that way by the punters remains to be seen.
It should also be considered in the context of the promise of the right to a year of unpaid carers lead. Relatives wishing to safeguard their inheritance can look after granny themselves.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
Isn't that your constituency Morris, as it is of my sister - in - law?
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Good morning Jack and good morning PBers
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
Another PB Old Contemptible returns ....
May I cordially wish you and your sandals good cheer in these sad days for the Whigigsh Yellow Peril. Though I hope we find the House of Tabman in good heart and health.
I didn't mention this at the time, but last election there was a noticeable absence of Labour posters etc and presence of Conservative ones on the walk to the polling station. I'll try to remember to report on that this time.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not Mr. Putney's sister-in-law.
I might ask my mother what her friends are thinking of doing.
Edited extra bit: although I'll have to check which constituency they're in, of course.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
Do you have anything to back that up ? I'd have thought Jenkins would increase her majority. Wakefield might be close if it is a good night for Labour.
Mr. Pulpstar, Dawson being a long-term local councillor (not sure if it was for Labour or the Morley Borough Independents) will help him. The political editor wasn't saying Labour would do well in Yorkshire as a whole, just that they had hopes for this particular constituency.
Worth recalling that the notional majority in 2010 was 10,000 for Lab, but Balls managed to whittle it down to 1,000 before narrowly losing in 2015.
Not sure if UKIP, which has had pretty good vote share here previously, are putting up a candidate.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
Do you have anything to back that up ? I'd have thought Jenkins would increase her majority. Wakefield might be close if it is a good night for Labour.
It's really quite shocking to think that there is nothing especially shocking about the idea a Labour seat that's been safe for 85 years might be close only if it's a 'good' night for Labour.
Mind you I said myself a few weeks ago that the Tories will have had a poor night if they don't take it.
Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
Up? I've been up for hours.
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.
The tides of history have moved, leaving the Nats and UKIP marooned. May obviously sees rich pickings amongst the wreckage.
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
In general, I consider this proposal to be a marked improvement on where we are at the moment.
Agreed, Sean.
It will be interesting to see how Conservative posters split on this. The proposals carry clear electoral risk. Will they accept that as a price for an interesting and potentially progressive policy that is very likely to be implemented in the next Parliament?
Judging by last nite's thread, I should say they are pretty evenly divided.
There's a widespread view that everything should be taxed except capital, which should be sacrosanct. But, if we have to have taxes and charges, the burden should be increased on capital and reduced on income. Oddly, this view was far more widely shared in the past than it is now. Rich people expected to make capital contributions in times of need, while fiercely resisting any taxes on income.
Mr. Punter, the only market I could find on that was Betfair Sportsbook. 4/6 on under 63%, but the odds are a bit mean and I think they've got the point more or less right.
I agree we'll have low turnout.
I think hills have an O/U turnout market but haven't looked at prices recently.
Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
Worth noting that passing on property (or the proceeds) is already illegal if done intentionally to avoid the costs of care. And unlike IHT there is no seven year limitation on retrospective action.
"...Couldn't even be bothered to turn up and ask people to vote for them."
Perhaps the voters are taking their lead from Party Leaders Corbyn and May. They couldn't be bothered to turn up to the TV debate. Maybe a lot of their supporters will decide not to bother on June 8th.
There would be a certain poetic justice if that were the case.
Mr. F, I think the problem is that there's only a drive to increase the scope of taxation. If capital tax rises were married to reduction in income tax, I think it'd have more support.
On that note, I think increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 at a time of financial difficulty is crackers. But there we are.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.
Are you entirely sure you can trust matron to post it for you, Jack?
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs breakfast of a political leader and party.
I also think that Britons are naturally truculent, they won't nessecarily vote for what Nanny tells them.
As someone who has never concealed his loathing of May, I do need to concede that her "dementia tax" is the right policy, though whether it is received that way by the punters remains to be seen.
It should also be considered in the context of the promise of the right to a year of unpaid carers lead. Relatives wishing to safeguard their inheritance can look after granny themselves.
I agree with every word of that- particularly the last line. I blame Thatcher of course. She's the one who made this country the selfish and self-centred place it's become. Mrs May is just second generation and her Brexiting shows we have plenty to look forward to
In general, I consider this proposal to be a marked improvement on where we are at the moment.
Agreed, Sean.
It will be interesting to see how Conservative posters split on this. The proposals carry clear electoral risk. Will they accept that as a price for an interesting and potentially progressive policy that is very likely to be implemented in the next Parliament?
Judging by last nite's thread, I should say they are pretty evenly divided.
I suspect it's not so much the social care policy itself which as others have said if nothing else is an improvement on what we have now but the timing of the announcement and the prominence it has received the Tory manifesto together with the "bad" news about the WFA and the ending of "free" school dinners for infants. Doesn't make it easier for candidates in marginals. On social care a small amendment in parliament capping the amount any one unlucky family pays would probably head off many of the critics. Trouble is the damage has been done. A hit in the polls this weekend seems likely but the concern might be will that presage further decline in the next two weeks so this ends up being a 42:37 rather than 47:32 election
Mr. Punter, the only market I could find on that was Betfair Sportsbook. 4/6 on under 63%, but the odds are a bit mean and I think they've got the point more or less right.
I agree we'll have low turnout.
I've been using Betfair Exchange for this market, MD.
I expect the bookies will produce some 'line' markets soon.
Worth noting that passing on property (or the proceeds) is already illegal if done intentionally to avoid the costs of care. And unlike IHT there is no seven year limitation on retrospective action.
I suppose the point would be how do you prove that? If the parents are still fit and not in need of care at the time it would be impossible to prove that the intention was to avoid care costs rather than for any other reason. The only effective way to deal with it would be to say that all gifting was illegal or subject to tax.
And that still wouldn't stop the very common schemes being run commercially today which as I say would become far more popular. Though I think it is a pretty awful attitude I can see that once the ability to pass on the house to the children has gone, many more people would find the idea of cashing in and spending all the money whilst they still can to be very popular.
You are 65, in reasonable health. The alternatives are:
You can have a huge lump sum or an income and can continue to live in your house and eventually get your care for free. Your kids will get the split of a residual £100,000.
or alternatively.
You continue to live in your house with all that value tied up in it. You will get the same care as in option 1 but when you die the government will take anything over £100,000 to pay for that care.
I am pretty sure I know which choice most people would make.
This would be an issue not only from a 'fairness' point of view but also from a practical point of view as it would result in less income for the social care services.
I am by no means advocating this. I think the Government proposals are very good on a philosophical and moral basis. I can just see them being a nightmare on a practical basis.
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
Worth noting that passing on property (or the proceeds) is already illegal if done intentionally to avoid the costs of care. And unlike IHT there is no seven year limitation on retrospective action.
There will be plenty of accountants busy thinking of schemes on this one. But yes I think you are right about disposal of assets to avoid care costs. Of course the secret is to time it correctly so that you have had several good years before they need to assess you. Is there case law on what that time might be?
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitive obssession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
Lest Tory supporters on here are starting to panic, it's probably worth pointing out that Ladbrokes currently go 400.5 Tory seats with their over/under 5/6 "You Choose" fulcrum bet. This is just about as high as it's been and as we punters know only too well, it's not very often that Shadsy, the Magic Sign's political guru, gets things seriously wrong ..... after all he has his legendary Christmas bonus to consider at times like this. This tipping point is equivalent to a Tory majority of 150 seats.
Mr. Ace, not read the books, but the third videogame (only one I've played) is absolutely fantastic. If that's indicative of the TV show's quality, it'll be great.
I do agree that there tend to be feeding frenzies for whichever genre is currently in fashion, though.
Mr. Punter, ah, I did check the exchange but must've missed that market.
Worth noting that passing on property (or the proceeds) is already illegal if done intentionally to avoid the costs of care. And unlike IHT there is no seven year limitation on retrospective action.
I suppose the point would be how do you prove that? If the parents are still fit and not in need of care at the time it would be impossible to prove that the intention was to avoid care costs rather than for any other reason. The only effective way to deal with it would be to say that all gifting was illegal or subject to tax.
And that still wouldn't stop the very common schemes being run commercially today which as I say would become far more popular. Though I think it is a pretty awful attitude I can see that once the ability to pass on the house to the children has gone, many more people would find the idea of cashing in and spending all the money whilst they still can to be very popular.
You are 65, in reasonable health. The alternatives are:
You can have a huge lump sum or an income and can continue to live in your house and eventually get your care for free. Your kids will get the split of a residual £100,000.
or alternatively.
You continue to live in your house with all that value tied up in it. You will get the same care as in option 1 but when you die the government will take anything over £100,000 to pay for that care.
I am pretty sure I know which choice most people would make.
This would be an issue not only from a 'fairness' point of view but also from a practical point of view as it would result in less income for the social care services.
I am by no means advocating this. I think the Government proposals are very good on a philosophical and moral basis. I can just see them being a nightmare on a practical basis.
Certainly, establishing intent is the difficult bit. Nevertheless there have been cases (Yule v South Lanarkshire Council [1999] 1 CCLR 546, Derbyshire CC v Akrill [2005] EWCA Civ 308 established some of the principles used to support authorities ability to recover) and the 2014 Care Act has since extended powers to recover the costs of care from the person in receipt of a transferred property.
Whilst rare, under the new regime the Tories are proposing, we can expect more cases of this sort. And of course there will be the deterrent effect on the majority of people who will want to stay on the right side of the law.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.
Are you entirely sure you can trust matron to post it for you, Jack?
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
Fishing policy is complicated. The fish swim where they want and don't recognise international borders and aren't therefore British, Scottish or EU fish. The CFP is finally working well in terms of fish management. Brexit risks upsetting that. The EU substantially controls the market for fish. Scotland has done well at the expense of Norway, particularly on farmed fish, because we're in the EU. Against that we'll have the leverage that comes from an independent negotiating position. It's probably a wash, but we could end up a bit better or a lot worse.
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
Perhaps a "culture" series ?
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
Perhaps a "culture" series ?
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Netflix spent £11m per episode to purchase the streaming rights to The Crown. The budget for The Witcher is set to be about the same and is larger than GoT. It is going to be a huge production and a massive boon to the British and European TV production industry given the locations are basically going to be reheated from GoT.
Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
Don't postal votesgo out this week?
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
I already have my postal vote.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.
Are you entirely sure you can trust matron to post it for you, Jack?
She could be an LD you know.
In that case it is safe.
Jacobites are well known for their sandals and fashionable whiskers ;-)
Whatever else it is that the Tories are proposing on social care will go over the heads of all but a small minority who care for the fine detail (and then many like me are going to still end up not quite feeling that they're quite sure as to what is being proposed). So it boils down to the question - do I trust the Tories on social care? - to which the answer is emphatically no. All in all, with the removal of the winter fuel allowance for all but the very poorest pensioners, and the ending of the 2.5% minimum guarantee, the overwhelming perception is that the Tories are clobbering pensioners and taking their votes for granted.
It is all impeccably timed, with postal votes going out next week.
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
Fishing policy is complicated. The fish swim where they want and don't recognise international borders and aren't therefore British, Scottish or EU fish. The CFP is finally working well in terms of fish management. Brexit risks upsetting that. The EU substantially controls the market for fish. Scotland has done well at the expense of Norway, particularly on farmed fish, because we're in the EU. Against that we'll have the leverage that comes from an independent negotiating position. It's probably a wash, but we could end up a bit better or a lot worse.
Norway has one of the best sustainable fishing policies on the planet. Whilst the EU was destroying European fisheries (and extending that destruction to West African fisheries as well) Norway managed to maintain stocks and protect hatcheries.
Bringing in farmed fish as part of the argument is (to excuse the pun) a red herring
Whilst the EU might have a reasonable policy at the moment there is absolutely no guarantee that will continue. the CFP is a very good reason for leaving.
Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
Perhaps a "culture" series ?
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
The announcement of a Dredd TV series a couple of weeks ago shows that might already be happening.
what a good thread header. I would only add that there are immediate needs care annuities in the market with Just and Friends Life - little known and always worth considering at point of need.
Funding their premiums isn't cheap BUT they do cap the hit to an estate by insuring the longevity of the person cover. Also ensuring the person receiving care has claimed all their state entitlements is essential - starting with Attendance Allowance which is not means tested and paid tax-free.
Just as an equity release provider as well as an INA provider might be well placed to innovate for this new regime too I'd have thought.
Also, I don't think Netflix and their production partner (SPTV is the most likely) will call it "The Witcher". That's a CDPR trademark. They will probably call it "The Last Wish" or "Sword of Destiny" which are the titles of the two prequels. Both are extremely important to the main story.
Whatever else it is that the Tories are proposing on social care will go over the heads of all but a small minority who care for the fine detail (and then many like me are going to still end up not quite feeling that they're quite sure as to what is being proposed). So it boils down to the question - do I trust the Tories on social care? - to which the answer is emphatically no. All in all, with the removal of the winter fuel allowance for all but the very poorest pensioners, and the ending of the 2.5% minimum guarantee, the overwhelming perception is that the Tories are clobbering pensioners and taking their votes for granted.
It is all impeccably timed, with postal votes going out next week.
Indeed. I use two or three members of my extended family as my 'cut through' checkers. They aren't interested in politics, probably read a bit of the newspaper a couple of times a week, but do catch the tv news headlines most evenings.
I am awaiting news as to whether this has cut-through. They are of an age where this will really matter - if they have heard of it.
A friend, who I saw last night, said that one of his family members (who falls into a similar category as far as 'cut through' goes) has already been on the phone saying how bad this policy might be. So one cut-through in his family at least.
Comments
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
Maggie at one point had a target of 40% didn't she?
I agree with the general sentiment that a small state is a better, more efficient one. I'm not really with you on asset taxes, or land taxes as rkrkrk mentioned - I've always thought that a single flat rate on all income might have attractions, or perhaps there are good things about a single flat rate on all spending - I generally like the idea of a simpler tax system of whatever stripe.
If only economics was a proper science
Bit sleepy, but I do agree with the sentiment of the article mostly (I fear it may be worse for May than she suspects).
On savings: we already have an incredibly low saving rate and thanks to that oaf Carney wetting the bed and cutting rates from historically low to a new historic low they're hardly encouraged by interest rates.
Even if you believe ISAs are a legitimate target, work to encourage saving elsewhere or wait until interest rates are normal, otherwise the mood music is all about spending because if you save, the government will come for it.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hampshire/7719605.stm
Apathy in the audience, dull sound bites from the candidates, if this is any indicator (which is doubtful) the tories will win a huge majority.
The formula.
I don't see why there shouldn't also be an insurance option if you don't want to risk most of your inheritance being taken. The insurance premium could be taken from your estate.
PS: Ani ful nos hour sistem is grate
There must be a better way. The Swiss have some ideas.
A very dull and predictable campaign, I maintain 50% for May, 60% turnout.
I commend the LDs for their honesty though the the 1p increase is rather timid considering what is required.
*sighs*
May is lucky she's against Corbyn.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
A target is something that has been painted on every Labour seat with a majority of below 15,000.
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
He told The Daily Telegraph: “I am delighted to see it confirmed that we will have a modern fishing policy that will have an EEZ 200 miles off the coastline.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/19/theresa-may-could-waive-rights-95-per-cent-british-waters-brexit/
Of course the SNP would waive 100%.....
Education Secretary John Swinney said the results made uncomfortable reading.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729
Well known unwashed Tory liar, that John Swinney......
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
May I cordially wish you and your sandals good cheer in these sad days for the Whigigsh Yellow Peril. Though I hope we find the House of Tabman in good heart and health.
In a highly representative sample I took in my barber's shop the other day the predicted turnout was 10%, and if I had changed my mind it would have been zero.
You can smell the tumbleweed drifting towards those polling booths.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.
http://paullinford.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/be-careful-gordy.html?showComment=1139417400000#c113941742103512485
And then cry for what it shows about the travails of the Labour party.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39982556
I agree we'll have low turnout.
It will be interesting to see how Conservative posters split on this. The proposals carry clear electoral risk. Will they accept that as a price for an interesting and potentially progressive policy that is very likely to be implemented in the next Parliament?
Judging by last nite's thread, I should say they are pretty evenly divided.
As someone who has never concealed his loathing of May, I do need to concede that her "dementia tax" is the right policy, though whether it is received that way by the punters remains to be seen.
It should also be considered in the context of the promise of the right to a year of unpaid carers lead. Relatives wishing to safeguard their inheritance can look after granny themselves.
I'm off out for a walk in the hills...
I didn't mention this at the time, but last election there was a noticeable absence of Labour posters etc and presence of Conservative ones on the walk to the polling station. I'll try to remember to report on that this time.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am not Mr. Putney's sister-in-law.
I might ask my mother what her friends are thinking of doing.
Edited extra bit: although I'll have to check which constituency they're in, of course.
I'd have thought Jenkins would increase her majority. Wakefield might be close if it is a good night for Labour.
Worth recalling that the notional majority in 2010 was 10,000 for Lab, but Balls managed to whittle it down to 1,000 before narrowly losing in 2015.
Not sure if UKIP, which has had pretty good vote share here previously, are putting up a candidate.
Mind you I said myself a few weeks ago that the Tories will have had a poor night if they don't take it.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
OT. A pity Trump isn't going to Riyadh on Friday. He could have watched one of their public executions.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
"...Couldn't even be bothered to turn up and ask people to vote for them."
Perhaps the voters are taking their lead from Party Leaders Corbyn and May. They couldn't be bothered to turn up to the TV debate. Maybe a lot of their supporters will decide not to bother on June 8th.
There would be a certain poetic justice if that were the case.
On that note, I think increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 at a time of financial difficulty is crackers. But there we are.
Based it off the relative fall last time a snap election was called from the last one.
She could be an LD you know.
As a voter that can apparently be "sacrificed" because I'm not important to Mrs May's ambitions I think I'll probably do my duty...
And vote Jezza!
I expect the bookies will produce some 'line' markets soon.
And that still wouldn't stop the very common schemes being run commercially today which as I say would become far more popular. Though I think it is a pretty awful attitude I can see that once the ability to pass on the house to the children has gone, many more people would find the idea of cashing in and spending all the money whilst they still can to be very popular.
You are 65, in reasonable health. The alternatives are:
You can have a huge lump sum or an income and can continue to live in your house and eventually get your care for free. Your kids will get the split of a residual £100,000.
or alternatively.
You continue to live in your house with all that value tied up in it. You will get the same care as in option 1 but when you die the government will take anything over £100,000 to pay for that care.
I am pretty sure I know which choice most people would make.
This would be an issue not only from a 'fairness' point of view but also from a practical point of view as it would result in less income for the social care services.
I am by no means advocating this. I think the Government proposals are very good on a philosophical and moral basis. I can just see them being a nightmare on a practical basis.
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
This tipping point is equivalent to a Tory majority of 150 seats.
I do agree that there tend to be feeding frenzies for whichever genre is currently in fashion, though.
Mr. Punter, ah, I did check the exchange but must've missed that market.
Whilst rare, under the new regime the Tories are proposing, we can expect more cases of this sort. And of course there will be the deterrent effect on the majority of people who will want to stay on the right side of the law.
Good article: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7669/CBP-7669.pdf
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Jacobites are well known for their sandals and fashionable whiskers ;-)
It is all impeccably timed, with postal votes going out next week.
Bringing in farmed fish as part of the argument is (to excuse the pun) a red herring
Whilst the EU might have a reasonable policy at the moment there is absolutely no guarantee that will continue. the CFP is a very good reason for leaving.
Funding their premiums isn't cheap BUT they do cap the hit to an estate by insuring the longevity of the person cover. Also ensuring the person receiving care has claimed all their state entitlements is essential - starting with Attendance Allowance which is not means tested and paid tax-free.
Just as an equity release provider as well as an INA provider might be well placed to innovate for this new regime too I'd have thought.
I am awaiting news as to whether this has cut-through. They are of an age where this will really matter - if they have heard of it.
A friend, who I saw last night, said that one of his family members (who falls into a similar category as far as 'cut through' goes) has already been on the phone saying how bad this policy might be. So one cut-through in his family at least.
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/865842292841644032