Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I think there is a risk of the accusations that Corbyn and McDonnell are terrorist sympathizers being dismissed by many as fake news..
For a lot of people it will be. 'Sympathiser' is probably too strong a word in any case, but most people who are inclined to like him will instantly dismiss it as fake, even though there are serious points there, and those who already disliked him will already know about it or it will reinforce a premade decision.
This certainly isn't fake:
As we learned from when he was elected, quoting him verbatim can be dismissed as a smear. If someone likes him after all this time, they will dismiss anything on the matter as fake, whether or not it is. If they disliked him because of it but are coming back to Labour, they've decided to look past it, so there's only the group who dislike him for other reasons, but if that is the case its odd they don't know about this.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.
Well, you can describe them as 'personal attacks' on Corbyn, I describe them as statements of fact regarding a man who overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children. Those are the facts.
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
Just touching on that Telegraph story about Corbyn's deep and longstanding association with the IRA, it seems very odd to me - indeed an outright dereliction of duty - that the Mail and the Sun have not gone far harder on Corbyn and McDonnell over this.
Why not? Are they keeping their powder dry until the last week?
At present, we have a Labour party led by two IRA sympathisers touching the mid 30s in the polling. I don't believe that many people know about their associations, outside of the Westminster bubble and sites like this. A few Sun and Daily Mail headers would surely change that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
I don't think the IRA story is anywhere near as watertight as you seem to think, and even if it were it is likely to resonate most strongly with the groups that are already voting Tory. And on top of that, as Project Fear showed in the referendum campaign, there is a level of hysteria that simply isn't credible. Speaking for myself, the personal attacks on Corbyn make me more likely to vote Labour, not less. It's what the man himself says that makes me think twice.
Well, you can describe them as 'personal attacks' on Corbyn, I describe them as statements of fact regarding a man who overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation that murdered women and children. Those are the facts.
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
To say he didn't overtly associate with the IRA is quite simply deluded. I do not know how much more evidence is required.
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
Except that's what he says now, not what he said then. He opposed the Anglo-Irish Agreement that was intended to bring about peace as he didn't think peace would bring a united Ireland so wanted the conflict to continue.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
Haven't seen much activity by the Tory on Twitter feeds. Will check if she has been Tweeting later, last time round the Con candidate was off helping Chris Skidmore. Greens seem to be hanging around the University of Bristol, but are supposed to be bussing in activists today. The Green candidate gives a Bristol address, but has been living there for about a month. Comparisons with Dr Nuttall have been made. Greens appear to be stuck in pen, paper and clipboard mode re canvassing. Suspect Lab will hold.
There are some, erm, interesting odds of 2.75 on both the Labour and Green parties. But Ladbrokes are greatly limiting the size of Labour bets.
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
Don't look at what he says now: look at what Labour Briefing said while Corbyn was general secretary of its editorial board:
In December 1984, the magazine “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”.
Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’... “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Incidentally, does speaking at IRA events count as 'overtly associating himself with a terrorist organisation'?
while the IRA 'armed struggle' was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA 'prisoners of war,' and the active 'soldiers of the IRA'.
The official programme for the 1988 event, held one week after the IRA murdered three British servicemen in the Netherlands, states that 'force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a free and united Socialist Ireland.' Mr Corbyn used the event to attack the Anglo-Irish agreement, the precursor of the peace process.
I stand to be directly affected by this - As I also said on the thread last night no one at work (affluent South East) is remotely bothered by this.
As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.
We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.
So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.
It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.
Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.
Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.
He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.
I agree, having had recent experience of the care system for my mother.
The present system is iniquitous. The Conservative proposals are a step to reduce the unfairness and anomalies. It is not perfect, but it is a workable plan that seems reasonable & could be delivered & implemented quickly.
Because of the outcry here, I read the Labour and LibDem manifestos carefully on social care. They have noble ideas, but they do not have proposals. We have just had the Dilnot Commission (set up by the Coalition Govt), which the Labour or LibDem manifestos could have easily promised to implement in full.
The manifesto is exactly the place where I would expect high-sounding words to be converted into something more concrete, a proposal that is roughly costed and worked out.
Until you have done this, then you have no chance of any progress. Labour's plan is ambitious (which is not a bad thing). There is an estimate of how much money is needed to fund it, which looks very low to me. There are no real clues as to how the money will be obtained, and plenty of other calls on the public purse in Labour's manifesto.
I agree with Labour's manifesto when it reads "Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans."
So, the Greens should hang their heads in shame for introducing the phrase "Dementia Tax".
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
It's a good try. I feel the tories are trying to calibrate their campaign to get a big enough working majority to do the things they want (including some hard choices which might get rolled back a bit before legislation) and not too much of a win so Corbyn stays in charge and the labour party splits. It's not this campaign they are working on as it's in the bag - it's the 2022 election they want to win.
I stand to be directly affected by this - As I also said on the thread last night no one at work (affluent South East) is remotely bothered by this.
As my mother in law was until recently in a care home suffering from dementia we fully expected that the estate would be wittled down to 23k paying for the care costs.
We would also have been paying a higher rate once her house sale had completed.
So, from the perspective of a family that has actually first hand experience of this - our feelings are is that this is a step in the right direction.
It may not be the optimum way but someone has at least tried to grasp the nettle.
Personally I am more pissed off at people who want to use cheap slogans to attack rather than a party that at least is trying even though they must have known how it would be spun.
Just another thought - when my father tries to talk to my brother and I about inheritance and how he doesn't want to spend X on himself as that is "for you" we both tell him to spend it on himself.
He was also shocked to find out my experience with mother in law that the State could take his asset to pay for care down to 23k - so another one who sees this as a step forward.
Because of the outcry here, I read the Labour and LibDem manifestos carefully on social care. They have noble ideas, but they do not have proposals.
True enough. They promise more money, which is welcome (LDs even say where the money will come from, Labour will 'seek consensus' on a cross party basis on how it could, and offer a number of potential options), but what does 'lay the foundations of a National Care Service for England' mean in labour's? And that is in their 'first term'. Some seem to think the Tories should likewise have avoided proposals because they could have gotten away with doing so and it would be politically convenient (there are also some who think they are a bad idea of course).
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
Yes exactly so. And can often be won round in a few minutes by simply pointing out that it is much easier and cheaper to administer a universal benefit and the rich pay more tax.
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
Yes exactly so. And can often be won round in a few minutes by simply pointing out that it is much easier and cheaper to administer a universal benefit and the rich pay more tax.
It's a good try. I feel the tories are trying to calibrate their campaign to get a big enough working majority to do the things they want (including some hard choices which might get rolled back a bit before legislation) and not too much of a win so Corbyn stays in charge and the labour party splits. It's not this campaign they are working on as it's in the bag - it's the 2022 election they want to win.
Part of me finds it very hard to believe any party would not seek to gain as big a win as they can, however I do think they have an eye on the future in one respect - there will be a lot of pain coming, and usually we're wary of admitting it, but if they flat out ignore it and spring surprise after surprise tax rise of benefit cut on us at the same time, say, as another economic crisis, then even if they started with a bigger majority they might fall harder. My hope is that they think they will win, and so think it is a better idea to prepare the later ground by admitting some tougher decisions, so that while people will still be mad at later events perhaps, everyone knows they have a mandate to do it, and so negative reaction is dimmed.
Labour will nevertheless be pleased, as it gives them an opening into that troublesome grey vote.
I confess while the name was familiar (if only because a few weeks ago someone was 'Do you know the Labour shadow defence secretary is Nia Griffith'?), I don't think I've ever seen her before in my life.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
Any news on polling today? Or are they out tomorrow? Nervousness for all three main parties I would suggest.
Even if there is a narrowing, the Tories have to hold their nerve and stick to their guns. Selling reality before an election is a tough gig, but the difference could not be more stark with Labour, who are trying to sell a fantasy. Actually, a nightmare in reality.
No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)
Here's what Corbyn himself says. "The violence was wrong on all sides and I have said so all along. My whole point was if we are to bring about a peace process, you weren't going to achieve it by military means." I wouldn't say the same myself, and I'd be much happier if Corbyn had spent the time he has on Ireland tending his allotment instead. But he simply has not overtly associated himself with a terrorist organisation. Claiming that he has is simply electioneering.
Don't look at what he says now: look at what Labour Briefing said while Corbyn was general secretary of its editorial board:
In December 1984, the magazine “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”.
Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’... “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Incidentally, does speaking at IRA events count as 'overtly associating himself with a terrorist organisation'?
while the IRA 'armed struggle' was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA 'prisoners of war,' and the active 'soldiers of the IRA'.
The official programme for the 1988 event, held one week after the IRA murdered three British servicemen in the Netherlands, states that 'force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a free and united Socialist Ireland.' Mr Corbyn used the event to attack the Anglo-Irish agreement, the precursor of the peace process.
As I said, not as watertight as some people seem to think. You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion. I am in my fifties and so I can remember how bad the stories about the IRA were at the time, and in fact grew up about 2 miles from where Ian Gow was blown up. My parents heard the explosion. I heard the Baltic Exchange bomb go off. Friends of mine were squaddies in Northern Ireland. There is no way I am a supporter of them or their cause. Corbyn was very unwise to have as much to do with them as he did. But he wasn't and isn't a supporter of terrorism.
Any news on polling today? Or are they out tomorrow? Nervousness for all three main parties I would suggest.
Tories have to know that they would have bad polls in the campaign and not overreact if it happens now. Labour need to hope momentum has been maintained to keep hope going. Lib Dems just want to stop the rot.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will. If Mr Corbyn says he did what he did in the interests of peace, he can explain why he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. We all know why - he wanted the IRA to WIN. Simple as that.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will.
The Tories have been supposedly 'keeping their powder dry' on going after Corbyn hard for weeks now, I am far from convinced springing it now will work, even if people really do not know.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will. If Mr Corbyn says he did what he did in the interests of peace, he can explain why he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. We all know why - he wanted the IRA to WIN. Simple as that.
I am not contesting that he wanted them to win. He obviously did and he'll probably see his dream of a 32C Irish state before he pegs it. I am saying that everyone who would change their vote on the basis of JC's Up the Ra past already has and the attack is therefore of nugatory use now.
Labour's figure to set up the National Care Service is 3 billion a year. This is to cover costs of social care at home and carers visiting homes.
Population of elderly in care homes in E & W at the moment is 300,000 (Source: ONS). Typical cost of care home place in the country is 25-35 k per annum, let's take 30 k as an average. So, annual cost of just the component of social care comprising that given in care homes is therefore 9 billion a year.
To this we need to add on the cost of care in the home. This is cheaper, but many more of the elderly population need it. There are 11 million over 65, but say 15 per cent at any time need home care. My rough guess is that say 10k per year per person for home care. Then that is 16 billion a year.
So, my estimate to run the National Care Service, Labour would need 25 billion a year. And the proportion of elderly, and hence the cost, is only going to rise.
For comparison, I think 1p on income tax for all bands raises 4.5 billion.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will. If Mr Corbyn says he did what he did in the interests of peace, he can explain why he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. We all know why - he wanted the IRA to WIN. Simple as that.
He also voted against Iraq and Libya You know why because you dislike him.Others might not see it that way.
Any news on polling today? Or are they out tomorrow? Nervousness for all three main parties I would suggest.
Tories have to know that they would have bad polls in the campaign and not overreact if it happens now. Labour need to hope momentum has been maintained to keep hope going. Lib Dems just want to stop the rot.
And the Tories need to hope Momentum has been maintained....to keep Jeremy Corbyn in place after the election.
No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)
The local voters are in no doubt who they need to vote for to beat the SNP in ESW
And the tsunami delivered Michelle Thomson... Once bitten and all that
Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
Common fallacy of thinking that a continuum has step changes in it when it's gradual all the way down. There are people who have written definitive histories of the Troubles, people who have never heard of Ireland, and a nice continuous curve of people between the two; likewise people who think the IRA are noble freedom fighters, people who think they should die on the rack, and people everywhere between the two. Somewhere among that lot are people whose knowledge of the Corbyn/IRA link can be increased in the next couple of weeks enough for them to mind about it more than they did before.
For another example of the fallacy, cf.: increasing the price of alcohol doesn't do any good because the "real alcoholics" will keep on drinking regardless.
Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?
She took a first class degree in modern languages at Oxford. Kind of trounces all the afore- mentioned plus Corbyn himself added together.
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
Yes exactly so. And can often be won round in a few minutes by simply pointing out that it is much easier and cheaper to administer a universal benefit and the rich pay more tax.
Except is there any evidence that is true?
We have indeed come along way from the days when poorer voters hated and detested the 'means test' and the poor board or whatever it was called.
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.
No mention of Corbyn by name or on a photograph on the two Labour leaflets in Bristol West. My wife had a targeted NHS in peril card today, no mention of Corbyn, but 4 quotes from newspapers. No sign of Tory leaflet. LDs plenty on Europe with Trump, Farage & Corbyn on leaflets.
I do wonder how many other Labour MPs haven't included Corbyn on their literature.
I think Bristol West will be held comfortably by Labour. Its precisely the sort of place the vote will hold up, and could even increase.
I agree 100%, I reckon Labour has a great chance and in a four horse race Baxter scores it as follows in terms of share of the vote: Labour ..................... 34.8% Commies Greens .... 20.3% Tories....................... 24.9% LibDems .................. 19.4%
Ladbrokes has this value-packed with Labour priced at a generous 7/4, a 75% better return than Paddy Power/Betfairs Sportsbook's stingy offer of Evens. As ever, DYOR
Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)
The local voters are in no doubt who they need to vote for to beat the SNP in ESW
I see Messrs Rentoul and Finkelstein are tweeting links to Mr Meeks fine thread here.
This is a header of exceptional analysis from someone who really knows their onions about saving for old age. It is outstanding. Bravo Mr Meeks.
If I'm going to quibble, it's with So who should bear the risk that you might need long term care in the future? It is undoubtedly bad luck to become so infirm. It is not immediately apparent why others should pay for that bad luck if you have the assets to do so yourself, at least at the level that the Conservatives are seeking to set as an asset floor.
You could make a reasonable argument, on almost exactly the same grounds, for NHS treatment to be means-tested. In fact if I just cut out the words "long term care" and replace them with "complex healthcare" I think that's all it would take.
Moving even to a French or German style of health insurance system in Britain is viewed as akin to charbroiling your neighbour's beloved cat, and suggesting that your 1-in-6 unlucky dose of expensive healthcare should be paid for out of hundreds of thousands of pounds of assets is rather more like charbroiling their newborn child.
I know not all on PB would be uncomfortable with a great role for the private sector in healthcare. The peculiarly British sense of attachment and pride in our peculiar health system is sometimes derided as an essentially irrational "national religion", and I see some truth in that - many of its core principles have become firmly embedded in the public consciousness, to the extent of becoming a doctrine beyond question by right-thinking people.
From the same school of thought that brought us "Trump should not be allowed to play with Twitter", comes "Lib Dems should not be allowed to play with Photoshop"
Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?
PB fan club in the making.
Simply coming across as a serious person and not a bit dim is noteworthy at the moment.
I'm struck also by how few blows the Tories have landed on either of them this campaign. There is a mountain of ammunition out there to be used against them, and use it they must. The gloves have to come off if the Tories are to nail these scumbags into oblivion.
Anybody who would care about the IRA craic already knows about it. As an attack it's completely fucked out.
...and those who don't know about it - the majority I would say - soon will.
The Tories have been supposedly 'keeping their powder dry' on going after Corbyn hard for weeks now, I am far from convinced springing it now will work, even if people really do not know.
What it does is shine a spotlight on the 'suitability to be PM' factor, though. Imagine a different scenario, and it came to light May had been chums with Nick Griffin, or secretly had a BNP membership.
She would be sunk - rightly - without trace. Now, as odious as the BNP are, none of them, as far as I know, are convicted terrorists or child killers, unlike the IRA - then and now. The extreme Left are always given a free pass over this kind of stuff. Same as McDonnell at that Communist rally. Imagine Phil Hammond attending a rally held by Nazis. No difference IMO.
The Tories may not directly favour these hard hitting tactics, but I'm damned sure that won't bother the Mail or the Sun one jot. The public must know intimately who they are potentially voting to become PM, and one of those people was (is) an active, overt and enthusiastic supporter of the IRA. He is also a supporter of Holocaust deniers.
We're talking about the future of our country here, not just the leadership of the Labour party.
The gloves have to come off big time, and right now.
If we see fit to comply with these norms and put heresy aside, it strikes me that the distinction between healthcare and social care is a very thin one. In that case, consistent with the precepts of High NHSism, I suspect the national spirit would prefer "free" high-quality care available to all, based on needs and regardless of wealth. (The catechism helpfully explains that "free" means "paid for by taxes, preferably other people's".) The more pragmatic and individualistic doctrine of Low NHSism is intensely comfortable that the wealthy can purchase a preferred standard of care, either through insurance or stumping up wads of cash or assets, provided they don't expect deep subsidies when they do so. There may be fanatics who believe this breaches the Articles of Monopoly established by One True NHSism, but their power is generally low and in relationship to any expansion of NHSism into social care their voices are likely to be quiet ones.
I'm happy that the Tories have tried to grasp a nettle that has been repeatedly kicked (the mixed metaphor may work better as "replanted") into the long grass. And I agree with Mr Meeks that market-based insurance does does not seem to be the cure-all. But I do suspect the National Health & Care Service is the natural long-term direction of travel: not necessarily an optimal solution, but through all the meanders the political currents gently flow this way. Nor am I sure that the Tories should ultimately regret that. The requisite taxation may be despaired of, but it is at least consistent with the "striver's principle" - plenty of older blue-inclined voters dislike the idea of working and saving hard all their lives, to see it all eaten up by costs that the spendthrift or slouch next-door receives for free.
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.
Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position. Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?
Diane Abbot?
"The ayes to the right, 300,000"
Do you think Dianne Abbot is ill for some one with her University Education and media experience every week previously with Andrew Neill does not seem correct.Hope I am wrong .
I also think the fact that Tezza was there yesterday, launching the Scottish manifesto, and Ruth is there today with 3 different canvassing teams, suggests they are fairly sure the voters know that too
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
You are a really nasty bit of work, aren't you, calling an innocent infant a "bastard." You have serious form for this, and every time you do it my theory is reinforced that you do it to compensate for the fact that, what with political correctness gone mad, you can no longer talk about n*ggers and poofters.
Good grief, Nia Griffith MP for Llanelli actually comes across quite well in that interview, so why do Labour keep trundling out the useless Abbott, Thornberry and Angela Rayner?
PB fan club in the making.
Simply coming across as a serious person and not a bit dim is noteworthy at the moment.
It is when looking at the Shadow Front Bench - she comes over EXTREMELY well and I'm a horrible PB Tory..... mind you, it's also obvious why she's not allowed out much by the Corbyn Clique.
Until a couple of weeks ago, one bookie was offering odds on who would be the next HoC Speaker. unfortunately this market has since been taken down. My own pick was Margaret Beckett at odds of 20/1, assuming she manages to narrowly sneak in at Derby South, and that it's now Labour's turn to hold this position. Anyone have other ideas, bearing in mind that including retirees, up to a third or more of Labour MPs may not be returning to the House after the GE?
Diane Abbot?
"The ayes to the right, 300,000"
Do you think Dianne Abbot is ill for some one with her University Education and media experience every week previously with Andrew Neill does not seem correct.Hope I am wrong .
I have thought the same thing. Diane of course also has an Oxbridge education but ever since she missed that key vote a few months ago she seems to have been off form. ON TW she was always switched on - now she seems switched off.
From the same school of thought that brought us "Trump should not be allowed to play with Twitter", comes "Lib Dems should not be allowed to play with Photoshop"
I also think the fact that Tezza was there yesterday, launching the Scottish manifesto, and Ruth is there today with 3 different canvassing teams, suggests they are fairly sure the voters know that too
Works for me, though frankly SLAB, SCON or SLD would be fine to me, at least in the short term of minimizing the SNP seats.
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
Well, the voters of Morley and Outwood had an opportunity to throw out a bastard last time, and took it....
No Green, No UKIP, just straight four way fight in Edinburgh South West with the SNP starting out over 8000 ahead and SCON 3500 behind SLAB. Good bet that any tactical voters would be somewhat undermined by uncertainty on the best placed to beat the SNP, and so they SNP hold on even if they drop a bit. (Rallings and Thrasher show that even at a 30.8% rise in SNP vote there, that was only the 28th largest SNP rise - gods, what a tsunami that was in 2015)
The local voters are in no doubt who they need to vote for to beat the SNP in ESW
If you say so.
I remember reading here in 2010 that the reason Alistair Darling wasn't campaigning in Edinburgh South-West was because he knew he was going to lose and had given up.
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.
HYUFD does seem to have a rather 'Coronation Street' view of the North and has the impression that nobody there will lose their WFA.
In the target seats the Tories need to win from Labour in the North and Midlands, in Middlesborough, Walsall,
You keep repeating that most wont lose WFA but could you tell me at what level people will lose it.
As I said you have a very 'Coronation Street' view of the North.
Above average UK wealth and assets, clearly pensioners in most marginal Labour northern seats do not have above average UK wealth and assets
So you don't actually know but yet again you are treating people as monolithic blocks - for example I know several pensioners in a marginal Labour northern seat who do have above average UK wealth and assets.
Therefore everyone who gets WFA will fear that they will lose out and will be annoyed that they are being treated worse than their Scottish equivalents.
This will cost the Conservatives votes in England and Wales.
So you know one or two wealthy pensioners in northern Labour marginal seats, so what, they are a minority, the vast majority of voters May needs to win in those Labour marginal seats are not wealthy and those that are are hardly going to vote for Corbyn anyway
I'm not surprised - those most opposed to universal benefits I've ever met have been poorer and/or working class, who would be 'expected' to be traditional Labour voters (and probably are, regardless of agreement on an issue like this)
People who have relatively little loathe 'waste'.
People who have relatively little loathe 'waste' ON OTHERS.
You are a really nasty bit of work, aren't you, calling an innocent infant a "bastard." You have serious form for this, and every time you do it my theory is reinforced that you do it to compensate for the fact that, what with political correctness gone mad, you can no longer talk about n*ggers and poofters.
LOL. Even against a very strong field packed with doughty challengers you are still the most pompous contributor here.
You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion.
The 'sharing a platform' excuse doesn't apply here. When you're editor of a magazine, you're responsible for the opinions that come out under its byline. When you're at an event organised by terrorists to commemorate dead terrorists, talking about how you hope the terrorists get what they want, you're sharing their opinion.
It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.
Jeremy Corbyn protesting about the rich pensioners losing out on the winter fuel allowance just comes across as self-interest! Who says? Not me - but a lifelong Labour voter I spoke too on the door-step last night. He was completely baffled why Corbyn was "standing up for the toffs".....
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
You are a really nasty bit of work, aren't you, calling an innocent infant a "bastard." You have serious form for this, and every time you do it my theory is reinforced that you do it to compensate for the fact that, what with political correctness gone mad, you can no longer talk about n*ggers and poofters.
LOL. Even against a very strong field packed with doughty challengers you are still the most pompous contributor here.
Sorry, I should have demolished your dimwitted and fallacious IRA argument more tactfully. I feel your butthurt.
That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.
Jeremy Corbyn protesting about the rich pensioners losing out on the winter fuel allowance just comes across as self-interest! Who says? Not me - but a lifelong Labour voter I spoke too on the door-step last night. He was completely baffled why Corbyn was "standing up for the toffs".....
Did you point out that Jeremy's a bit posh himself and has a brother called Piers.
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
The parents are engaged, close enough.
There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.
I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.
We've had plenty of elections like this; in my memory 1979, 1983, 1987, 1997, 2001, 2005. It's really only the last two elections and 1992 that have been the exceptions. 1979 and 1997 were 'exciting' because the country expected a new regime and wanted to know what degree of change they could expect.
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
The parents are engaged, close enough.
There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.
I know Lopresti cheated on his wife and all that, I'm just surprised that many people would care too much. Even if they dislike infidelity enough to vote against a prospective MP, a child born out of wedlock seems an odd thing to make it any worse, since they are now engaged.
You are already quoting stuff written by someone else and using sharing a platform as a proxy for sharing an opinion.
The 'sharing a platform' excuse doesn't apply here. When you're editor of a magazine, you're responsible for the opinions that come out under its byline. When you're at an event organised by terrorists to commemorate dead terrorists, talking about how you hope the terrorists get what they want, you're sharing their opinion.
It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.
'But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.'
Spot on. I must have read hundreds of comments from apologists all over the internet trying to absolve Corbyn of what he said and did in support of Irish Republicanism (the same with his links to anti-Semitism and his ties with Iranian propaganda outlets).
The lie that he was interested in peace must be nailed once and for all, becuase he wasn't UNLESS the IRA won their campaign. For goodness sake, he voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement because it didn't overtly favour the IRA and their cause.
I think making relatively wealthy people in southern England with more than £100,000 in assets pay for their care will be fantastically popular with most voters. And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party? The Tories don't need to pile up such large majorities in their south-east constituencies.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
That feedback is horrendous for Labour - and it's C2DE's in Bury, and in the Huff.
Note: Participants were habitual Labour voters who are considering voting Conservative at this election.
hmmm
Yes, it's specifically people who before the focus group said "I am a Labour voter considering voting Conservative". Statistically, one should always be careful to over-interpret focus groups (a sample of 10 people or so) but a group already leaning one way is particularly likely to say things consistent with their leaning.
That doesn't mean I don't think the Tory proposals might be popular with genuinely uncommitted voters. I don't know, but perhaps the polls this evening will tell us the snap reaction.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
I hope this never happens again, where we have an election which isn't a proper contest and one party can take victory for granted no matter what happens. Also it makes for a very boring campaign.
I think 2001 was boring only thing I can remember is Haque saving the pound, Prescott punching someone and Mandelson I am not a quitter.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
I think making relatively wealthy people in southern England with more than £100,000 in assets pay for their care will be fantastically popular with most voters. And where are those affected by it going to go, politically speaking? Are they going to support Corbyn's Labour Party? The Tories don't need to pile up such large majorities in their south-east constituencies.
£100,000 is hardly wealthy in terms of net assets.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
The truth is, there is no easy solution for care. I'm not 100% happy about this method, but this is a very hard problem with precisely zero easy solutions. I'd favour a more collectivist approach but this would have political downsides too... I don't think it'll cost toooo many votes.
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.
Perhaps voters don't like having an MP who has just had a little bastard!
The parents are engaged, close enough.
There's a lot more to it than that. Would be surprised if Labour don't play it hard in both constituencies.
I know Lopresti cheated on his wife and all that, I'm just surprised that many people would care too much. Even if they dislike infidelity enough to vote against a prospective MP, a child born out of wedlock seems an odd thing to make it any worse, since they are now engaged.
To a lot of social conservatives, including a lot of conservative supports and activists, this sort of thing does matter. In a marginal seat, it doesn't need many of them to stay at home to change the outcome.
Kudos to Jim Davidson for campaigning for the Tories in Derby in the rain, rather more useful for the Tories than leftie celebs tweeting from North London will be for Corbyn
Jim Davidson isn't my favorite comedian and the Blues aren't my favorite Party but I have a lot of respect for anybody who gets out there and footslogs for their political beliefs, and that includes Jim.
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.
You should campaign for a second vote!!!
No, it's time to move on and just accept I live in a nation of degenerates.
kle4, I gotta ask this - who are you actually voting for this election? I can't make my mind up whether you're a Labour double agent sounding out Tory opinion, a covert Corbyn sympathiser (you do seem to defend his 'honour' on occasion), or a wavering Tory voter. Perhaps even a Limp Dim? UKIP? Green??
Comments
Who remembers Jim Davidson's number one fan on here - Coldstone aka GrumpOldMan?
That was his catchphrase I think.
In December 1984, the magazine “reaffirmed its support for, and solidarity with, the Irish republican movement” noting that its “overwhelming priority as active members of the British labour movement is to fight for and secure an unconditional British withdrawal”. Only “an unconditional British withdrawal, including the disarming of the RUC and UDR, will allow for peace in Ireland. Labour briefing stands for peace, but we are not pacifists”. Moreover, “It certainly appears to be the case that the British only sit up and take notice when they are bombed into it”.
Condemning the bombing showed that the Labour party had lost its ‘political nerve’... “We refuse to parrot the ritual condemnation of ‘violence’ because we insist on placing responsibility where it lies…. Let our ‘Iron Lady’ know this: those who live by the sword shall die by it. If she wants violence, then violence she will certainly get.”
Incidentally, does speaking at IRA events count as 'overtly associating himself with a terrorist organisation'?
while the IRA 'armed struggle' was at its height, Mr Corbyn attended and spoke at official republican commemorations to honour dead IRA terrorists, IRA 'prisoners of war,' and the active 'soldiers of the IRA'.
The official programme for the 1988 event, held one week after the IRA murdered three British servicemen in the Netherlands, states that 'force of arms is the only method capable of bringing about a free and united Socialist Ireland.' Mr Corbyn used the event to attack the Anglo-Irish agreement, the precursor of the peace process.
The present system is iniquitous. The Conservative proposals are a step to reduce the unfairness and anomalies. It is not perfect, but it is a workable plan that seems reasonable & could be delivered & implemented quickly.
Because of the outcry here, I read the Labour and LibDem manifestos carefully on social care. They have noble ideas, but they do not have proposals. We have just had the Dilnot Commission (set up by the Coalition Govt), which the Labour or LibDem manifestos could have easily promised to implement in full.
The manifesto is exactly the place where I would expect high-sounding words to be converted into something more concrete, a proposal that is roughly costed and worked out.
Until you have done this, then you have no chance of any progress. Labour's plan is ambitious (which is not a bad thing). There is an estimate of how much money is needed to fund it, which looks very low to me. There are no real clues as to how the money will be obtained, and plenty of other calls on the public purse in Labour's manifesto.
I agree with Labour's manifesto when it reads "Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans."
So, the Greens should hang their heads in shame for introducing the phrase "Dementia Tax".
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/865866746951081987
https://twitter.com/iankatz1000/status/865704524627025920
https://twitter.com/milesbriggsmsp/status/865891698483789824
https://twitter.com/kezdugdale/status/865886989463289857
And if Labour beat the SNP, she can sack them too?
Labour will nevertheless be pleased, as it gives them an opening into that troublesome grey vote.
Even if there is a narrowing, the Tories have to hold their nerve and stick to their guns. Selling reality before an election is a tough gig, but the difference could not be more stark with Labour, who are trying to sell a fantasy. Actually, a nightmare in reality.
Strong & Stable vs Terrorist Sympathisers.
Population of elderly in care homes in E & W at the moment is 300,000 (Source: ONS). Typical cost of care home place in the country is 25-35 k per annum, let's take 30 k as an average. So, annual cost of just the component of social care comprising that given in care homes is therefore 9 billion a year.
To this we need to add on the cost of care in the home. This is cheaper, but many more of the elderly population need it. There are 11 million over 65, but say 15 per cent at any time need home care. My rough guess is that say 10k per year per person for home care. Then that is 16 billion a year.
So, my estimate to run the National Care Service, Labour would need 25 billion a year. And the proportion of elderly, and hence the cost, is only going to rise.
For comparison, I think 1p on income tax for all bands raises 4.5 billion.
And the tsunami delivered Michelle Thomson... Once bitten and all that
For another example of the fallacy, cf.: increasing the price of alcohol doesn't do any good because the "real alcoholics" will keep on drinking regardless.
Labour ..................... 34.8%
Commies Greens .... 20.3%
Tories....................... 24.9%
LibDems .................. 19.4%
Ladbrokes has this value-packed with Labour priced at a generous 7/4, a 75% better return than Paddy Power/Betfairs Sportsbook's stingy offer of Evens.
As ever, DYOR
If I'm going to quibble, it's with So who should bear the risk that you might need long term care in the future? It is undoubtedly bad luck to become so infirm. It is not immediately apparent why others should pay for that bad luck if you have the assets to do so yourself, at least at the level that the Conservatives are seeking to set as an asset floor.
You could make a reasonable argument, on almost exactly the same grounds, for NHS treatment to be means-tested. In fact if I just cut out the words "long term care" and replace them with "complex healthcare" I think that's all it would take.
Moving even to a French or German style of health insurance system in Britain is viewed as akin to charbroiling your neighbour's beloved cat, and suggesting that your 1-in-6 unlucky dose of expensive healthcare should be paid for out of hundreds of thousands of pounds of assets is rather more like charbroiling their newborn child.
I know not all on PB would be uncomfortable with a great role for the private sector in healthcare. The peculiarly British sense of attachment and pride in our peculiar health system is sometimes derided as an essentially irrational "national religion", and I see some truth in that - many of its core principles have become firmly embedded in the public consciousness, to the extent of becoming a doctrine beyond question by right-thinking people.
https://twitter.com/daily_ref/status/865899474660577282
She would be sunk - rightly - without trace. Now, as odious as the BNP are, none of them, as far as I know, are convicted terrorists or child killers, unlike the IRA - then and now. The extreme Left are always given a free pass over this kind of stuff. Same as McDonnell at that Communist rally. Imagine Phil Hammond attending a rally held by Nazis. No difference IMO.
The Tories may not directly favour these hard hitting tactics, but I'm damned sure that won't bother the Mail or the Sun one jot. The public must know intimately who they are potentially voting to become PM, and one of those people was (is) an active, overt and enthusiastic supporter of the IRA. He is also a supporter of Holocaust deniers.
We're talking about the future of our country here, not just the leadership of the Labour party.
The gloves have to come off big time, and right now.
I'm happy that the Tories have tried to grasp a nettle that has been repeatedly kicked (the mixed metaphor may work better as "replanted") into the long grass. And I agree with Mr Meeks that market-based insurance does does not seem to be the cure-all. But I do suspect the National Health & Care Service is the natural long-term direction of travel: not necessarily an optimal solution, but through all the meanders the political currents gently flow this way. Nor am I sure that the Tories should ultimately regret that. The requisite taxation may be despaired of, but it is at least consistent with the "striver's principle" - plenty of older blue-inclined voters dislike the idea of working and saving hard all their lives, to see it all eaten up by costs that the spendthrift or slouch next-door receives for free.
I also think the fact that Tezza was there yesterday, launching the Scottish manifesto, and Ruth is there today with 3 different canvassing teams, suggests they are fairly sure the voters know that too
Darling won by other 8,000 votes.
It's fine to argue that the whole thing won't have much electoral impact, although I suspect Crosby has focus-grouped attack ads which will be highly targeted and come out near the end of the campaign. But let's not beat about the bush: Corbyn and McDonnell supported the terrorist campaign to unify Ireland.
The nation has also spoken about the other major scone hot topic – jam or cream first? Jam first – also known as the “Cornish” method – is the overwhelming favourite, with more than six in ten (61%) adding the sweet stuff first. By contrast, just one in five (21%) go for the “Devon” approach of putting the cream on before putting on the jam
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/10/31/its-scone-gone-not-scone-bone/
I hate jam, but if I were so inclined, I would put it on after the cream, so now I am in the 21%.
I see you as a vile little shit.
hmmm
Tories admit nearly all pensioners will lose WFA.
Nothing leftwing about stealing from people with £153 pw to live on to fund a Corporation tax for big business.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eremy-corbyn-labour-defence-spokeswoman-nia-griffith-nato-doubts-deployment-estonia-russia-a7523361.html
Spot on. I must have read hundreds of comments from apologists all over the internet trying to absolve Corbyn of what he said and did in support of Irish Republicanism (the same with his links to anti-Semitism and his ties with Iranian propaganda outlets).
The lie that he was interested in peace must be nailed once and for all, becuase he wasn't UNLESS the IRA won their campaign. For goodness sake, he voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement because it didn't overtly favour the IRA and their cause.
Nearly all pensioners own their own homes and have paid off their mortgage. Very few homeowning pensioners across the UK won't be affected by this. Taken together with removing the winter fuel allowance from all but a few, and ending the triple lock, it all adds up to a pretty big perceived assault on a group 69% of whom vote Tory (last YouGov).
Here are two possible reactions, it's uncertain how potent this could be in terms of overall effect, but whether it appreciably affects loyalties or not I think there will be 10 times as many in category 1 as category 2:
1. I'm a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at us. I'm not going to vote for them now because of that.
2. I'm not a pensioner. The Tories are having a go at pensioners. I'm going to vote Tory now because of that.
That doesn't mean I don't think the Tory proposals might be popular with genuinely uncommitted voters. I don't know, but perhaps the polls this evening will tell us the snap reaction.
I don't think it'll cost toooo many votes.
https://twitter.com/CCHQPress/status/865888565112262656
Talking of footsoldiers, the Labour Party were out in force in Wanstead High Street just now. They seemed on the whole to be getting a good response, but it's a safe Labour seat, even if Wanstead is the Tory end. No sign of the Conservatives, but they are probably targeting marginal Ilford, which would be sensible.
I indicated that I wouldn't be supporting John Cryer this time because of his support for Brexit. They were sensible enough not to engage me in debate and just said they would pass the message on. I'm sure it won't worry him.
Which one? I'm genuinely intrigued.