Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
Your numbers don't make any sense to me. If the current floor is £23k (but excluding property) and they have £50k in cash then they are already over the floor. So why are they only paying £41 per week? And why would that suddenly change in the new system from £41 per week to £400 per week?
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
Had a ton of bumph through the door prior to the locals, nothing since however and virtually no posters seen on my usual daily route. – We’re a quiet, undemonstrative lot here in Wilts.
2 letters from Mrs May (one on rather fetching pale yellow paper) 2 leaflets from the Tories, one Tory canvasser and 1 rather uninspiring leaflet from Karen Buck. Am I in a target seat for the first time in my life?
I’m in a LD target seat apparently (Salisbury) hence the pre local election deluge, which also had the yellow and blue parliamentary candidates. Probably why it’s all gone so quiet now.
Salisbury is a LD target seat?! After the terrible locals there then I would not blame their activists for having a quiet GE.
There's no way Salisbury is close to being an LD target seat. John Glen got well over 50% last time, and the LDs came 4th.
Hence the '?!'
Indeed. I lived there before I moved out here, it's one of the most blue places in the country - Salisbury going for anyone else would be Bootle in reverse!
Even in the city itself there's only 1 LD councillor now, and I know them, it was probably a personal vote more than a party vote.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
No house is worth £200k outside London and the South on average and that is not where the Tory target seats are, in any case most houses in London and the South are worth £300k+ so would have been caught by inheritance tax which the Tories took most of them out of last year and indeed if that same hypothetical person had needed residential care before they would have only been left with £23k including the value of their house, they now get £100k to keep including the value of their house
If the house is worth £150k same principle applies
There are more than 3 times as many receiving SC at home than residential care.
All with less than £50k cash currently pay cira £41pw towards that that will go up to full cost hence forth so their cash eroded 10 times quicker
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
The Tories are currently getting a swing of 7%+ in the Midlands and North and Wales on the Yougov regional poll but only 2% in London, so all those seats will likely go Tory but Tooting will likely go Labour
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
Exactly, so not 1 UK region outside of London, the South East, the South West and the East has an average house price over £200k, and those provincial regions are where May is targeting, a slight Tory to Labour swing in the richest 4 regions would pick up barely any Tory seats but a large Tory to Labour swing in the Midlands, Wales and the North would pick up lots of Labour seats
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
Many properties are owned by two people, which will effectively halve the asset value for an individual.
Could be wrong but I don't think it will. If one person requires care and sucks the joint assets down to the last 100,000, surely the other will get care for free?
Or will there be a joint £200,000 for assets held in common, as there is for IHR?
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Well said Sir, a calm and collected debate is what's needed on this issue.
Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Agreed -- super post.
As the Labour Manifesto says "Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans."
The real scoundrels are Cameron/ Osborne for introducing the phrase "Death Tax" and Caroline Lucas for "Dementia Tax".
May does deserve credit for trying to address this issue.
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
That's because the 2.7% swing you assume from that poll is a crock of crap, Justin. Think about it.
Is there a way the pollsters [ particularly, panel pollsters like YG ] can pick up people who have not voted ever or the last few elections, but this time will vote ?
Let's say, 2% of the electoral register.
Pollsters will have to go on what people self-report (and self-claim about their intentions).
The list of who has voted in every election is made publicly available afterwards, and any clued up local party will get the list and update its database. Therefore where local parties are active you can bet the activists know who has voted and who hasn't.
It amuses me as a local councillor that now and again people phone me up asking for help, claiming that they voted for me last time, and I can see from my computer that they never made it to the polling station at all.
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Excellent post - broadly but more succinctly what I was arguing downthread. Since people are used to free healthcare I think that voters are going to see the distinction between e.g. dementia and cancer and the way we allocate the risks as essentially unfair.
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
That's because the 2.7% swing you assume from that poll is a crock of crap, Justin. Think about it.
I actually suspect that to be more applicable to the Electoral Calculus figures - no explanation has been provided that I am aware of. The site is predicting a Tory gain from the Greens at Brighton Pavilion. How likely is that?
im beginning to think that Theresa May has really cocked up with this social care announcement making an issue that wasn't in the public spotlight become an issue during an election campaign that was meant to be all be about Brexit which she was clearly winning by a large margin. needless own goal that will cost her lots of votes just hope it doesn't allow Corbyn to win
No it won't as swing voters in the North and Midlands will be barely affected at all and will in fact benefit if they need residential care, the main losers will be wealthy voters in London and the South and while a few may go LD they certainly won't vote for Corbyn
Not true almost every home owner is affected
No, unless they need personal care and are wealthy they will be barely affected at all, indeed if they need residential care they will benefit as they get to keep £100k rather than £23k as before
Not true you dont understand the current rules for homecare (which 76% of all those receiving care get)
Because the house is disregarded the person affected is allowed £50k capital.
If you are below that you pay a token amount (in our case £41 pw of the £400 per week Care bill for Mrs BJ.
Above £50k you pay the full care bill
Once your house is brought in everyone pays the full care bill as their assets are over £50k
Those thinking few are affected.
This is a complete gamechanger.
If your bill is £400 a week, would I be right in assuming that you are receiving maximum entitlements from the welfare system regarding independence payments, care allowances etc?
It also seems that Mrs May is saying that £100k is your capital allowance after this reform.
Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].
Yes, I realise that, but I thought it a tad dishonest to actually include the 2001 Labour landslide, even though they did lose 6 seats. OK, go on then, let's make it FIVE elections in a row where they've lost seats. Unprecedented in British democracy? Must be.
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
The Tories are currently getting a swing of 7%+ in the Midlands and North and Wales on the Yougov regional poll but only 2% in London, so all those seats will likely go Tory but Tooting will likely go Labour
No indication that the site is relying on crossbreaks or regional polls.
Anecdote: no leaflets received; no posters seen. My poll card has arrived, though.
One leaflet here - the fragrant Mr Bercow pictured with his wife Sally & 3 kids (are they back together) and then testimonials and photos from TMay, Tim Farron and.... Yvette Cooper...
hmm spot the odd one out.
Obviously has to be Tim Farron. He's the only one who looks good in a skirt and sandals.
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Agreed - going for the grown up approach to politics is a massive plus. It's why I see May's Tory party as head and shoulders above one run by Camborne.
I have looked at the Electoral Calculus site , and it is clear that it is not applying a universal swing. Seats listed as Tory gains include – Edgbaston – Bishop Auckland – Bristol East Southampton Test – Wakefield -Delyn – Chorley – Eltham – Stoke on Trent North – Stoke on Trent South. None of those seats would fall to the Tories on a 2.7% swing – indeed Stoke on Trent North requires a swing of over 6% and Chorley, Bristol East and Bishop Auckland a 4.5% swing.. On the other hand , Tooting would very narrowly go Tory but is not included in the list.
The Tories are currently getting a swing of 7%+ in the Midlands and North and Wales on the Yougov regional poll but only 2% in London, so all those seats will likely go Tory but Tooting will likely go Labour
No indication that the site is relying on crossbreaks or regional polls.
Those of you discussing house prices in the usual PB fashion ("YOUR MUM SMELLS OF POO!") may wish to look at the latest ONS figures (available at this link here). The relevant figures are:
Avg Price Country and GOR £232,530 England £124,007 Northern Ireland (Quarter 1 - 2017) £137,139 Scotland £147,746 Wales £176,213 East Midlands £277,127 East of England £471,742 London £122,298 North East £150,250 North West £311,514 South East £240,222 South West £180,293 West Midlands Region £149,606 Yorkshire and The Humber
I don't understand your point, the threshold is £100k not £200k.
There is not a single region with an average house price below £100k so it looks like every single region will be affected.
The clear majority of regions will get to keep over half their assets even if they need care, that is the point and not all those who need care will spend over £100 000
Your still missing it.
Person A Has £50k cash and a house worth £200k and has £400 of social care at home per week
Current system pays £41 pw towards care (just over £2k per Annum) 10 years still using cash they are £20k less cash rich than before so still has a house and £30k cash
New system same person now has £250k assets and pays full cost of care. 1 years cost is £20k So after 2.5 years all cash is gone Half the house gone in 7.5 years
Not a gamechanger
Dream on
No house is worth £200k outside London and the South on average and that is not where the Tory target seats are, in any case most houses in London and the South are worth £300k+ so would have been caught by inheritance tax which the Tories took most of them out of last year and indeed if that same hypothetical person had needed residential care before they would have only been left with £23k including the value of their house, they now get £100k to keep including the value of their house
If the house is worth £150k same principle applies
There are more than 3 times as many receiving SC at home than residential care.
All with less than £50k cash currently pay cira £41pw towards that that will go up to full cost hence forth so their cash eroded 10 times quicker
Many of those who have personal care will go onto residential care and be better off when they do
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Not wanting to teach my grandmother to suck eggs but there is probably no limit if it for the national campaign and doesn't feature a local candidate. For a local poster then the size must be limited by the cost to the local campaign. There are of course issues near polling stations. The Lib Dems had one outside the polling station in Kirkby Lonsdale at the local elections. Gave me a lot of grief as some of my helpful supporters demanded I got it taken down - as if I had f**k all else to do. Was it borderline legal ? I guess so.
Also the Lib Dems up here have always had the trick of renting the posters to themselves for the duration of the campaign.
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
May and the Tories are to be unreservedly applauded for making this a prominent issue. It's a shame it was not done years ago, but Labour learned a Death Tax lesson in 2010 and the Tories made a rod for their own back in deploying the term - so May's move is undoubtedly brave, if made a whole lot easier by the fact that she is facing Jeremy Corbyn. He really is a political game-changer.
The debate should now be about whether the duty of care and payment should be placed entirely on the family concerned, or whether a pooling approach is a better one. I favour the latter, because any one of us might be affected by this and dementia is an illness just as much as any other; but I can understand why others might take the opposite view. Once the general election is out of the way we may just get a grown-up conversation going, which would be extraordinary, but also very positive. My guess is that the policy as currently set out by the Tories will not be the one that makes it to the statute books.
Excellent post - broadly but more succinctly what I was arguing downthread. Since people are used to free healthcare I think that voters are going to see the distinction between e.g. dementia and cancer and the way we allocate the risks as essentially unfair.
If there's to be some payment for end of life care it's more sensible for individuals to pay the equivalent of an excess on an insurance policy. Except for offering to leave behind part of the house value, May is asking us to take on the 'tail risk'. She's been really badly-advised/she's mad (delete as applicable).
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
If it is, its a reminder just how coercive the state can be. Social landlords can get away with treating their tenants like door mats in a way a private landlord cant.
There are zero and I mean zero chances a tenant could lose their social tenancy due to putting up an election poster. In fact I would expect a better chance of Jezza getting a landslide majority.
It requires a court to end a social tenancy.
I'm a tenant in the private sector and my rental agreement has a specific clause that says I may not display any posters without the landlord's permission.
It also says I may not park a caravan outside the house....
But that's very different. I know similar clauses are on farms belonging an estate in South Lakeland.
Is there any restriction on the size of posters that one can erect during an election? I know they're exempt from normal planning applications, because they're temporary, but could I put one up that's 50 feet high?
I'm asking because someone wants to object to an extremely large poster on a narrow road, which he thinks could be a distraction for traffic (I suspect he disagrees with the poster, but anyway I want to give a factual reply).
Is it right that council tenants are forbidden from putting up election posters?
Definitely not true
Agreed - but it used to be the case that in some areas tenants were told that if they put up non-Labour posters they would be evicted.
No, north of Watford the average house price is under £200 000 actually and those are the seats May is targeting and will be barely affected, south of Watford it is £300 000+ but most of those seats are blue anyway and will not vote for Corbyn, at most a handful will go LD. May will still gain lots of Labour seats in Brexitshire in the North and Midlands and Wales and in Scotland against indyref2, she may lose a few in wealthy Southern Remainier to the LDs but overall she will increase her majority significantly
hope you're right HYUFD. Maybe i'm just having a Tory wobble moment and all I can see is an unforced error by Theresa May that could've been avoided but if she still comes out with a landslide then Lynton Crosby deserves a knighthood . The problem with these type of complex announcements is the media doesn't give the public the detail just the headlines and that is all most people hear in their busy lives is the message that the Tories are attacking pensioners and are the nasty party. evil baby eaters etc. however I do hope I am proved completely wrong because social care is an issue that needs to be tackled in this country in the long term
It has taken PB by storm and that will be reflected in the media which follow PB Guido etc for small stories. THE question is actually a complex one as Mr Meeks has shown so well. Better to have a debate on this, where there is a reasonable response, even if not one everyone agrees with than on some random thing like what Farron does on a Sunday et al. This debate will then colour the white/green paper and the actual legislation will follow in 2019/20.
Comments
I'm very sceptical about that kind of thing, especially when the last one that was released in full had one in six Labour voters as a 'did not vote'.
Or will there be a joint £200,000 for assets held in common, as there is for IHR?
2001, 2005, 2010, 2015 and then 2017.
Assuming Labour lose seats. If we're returning to two party politics we may see some weird results [although I do expect Labour to lose seats, and a fair number].
As the Labour Manifesto says "Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans."
The real scoundrels are Cameron/ Osborne for introducing the phrase "Death Tax" and Caroline Lucas for "Dementia Tax".
May does deserve credit for trying to address this issue.
The list of who has voted in every election is made publicly available afterwards, and any clued up local party will get the list and update its database. Therefore where local parties are active you can bet the activists know who has voted and who hasn't.
It amuses me as a local councillor that now and again people phone me up asking for help, claiming that they voted for me last time, and I can see from my computer that they never made it to the polling station at all.
https://twitter.com/MilesBriggsMSP/status/865891698483789824
https://twitter.com/scottishlabour/status/865891281356062721
It also seems that Mrs May is saying that £100k is your capital allowance after this reform.
Also the Lib Dems up here have always had the trick of renting the posters to themselves for the duration of the campaign.