Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
Give me some respect. I said these policies were a dreadful example of big fucking hairy bollocks from the beginning. Right from the start. Right from the get-go.
I was right. Sadly, sadly. I was right.
HOW TO HALVE YOUR LEAD IN 48 HOURS, A SEMINAR BY THERESA MAY
I'm surprised. But kudos to you. Red faces all round.
Hardly - plenty of people said there would be a poll hit, they just argue that panicking is not the answer and questioned how big a hit it would be.
Even I am warming to Corbyn. Good campaigner. And some (not all, far from it) decent policies that have the advantage of being easy to communicate. Railways back in public control. Everyone thinks they understand that even if they don't really understand it. That said, still think May will win big, in the end.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it’s a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
As you have written TAXES in capital letters, let’s hear your policy suggestion.
How do you plan to pay for social care?
The only other suggestion I have heard so far is a National Care Service, which will need substantial TAXES. My rough calculation suggest if it was paid for by income TAX alone, it would need an extra 3p in the pound.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
I appreciate that a free lunch is popular. But someone has to pay for it. Your view is that people who with assets above £23 k, who have to go into care homes, are the ones who should pay for it.
Or say that "lunch won't be free, but we're not sure how much it will cost in the future". Don't say "lunch is going to leave your kids without an inheritance or possibly homeless if you live in the south east".
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Yes! Thank you! Some of the posters who are saying this policy is just fine would be vitriolic if orbyn dared to propose such a policy.
@theresa_may: If I lose just six seats I will lose this election and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with Europe: facebook.com/TheresaMayOffi…
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
It isn't her it is Timothy-everything i hear from those close to the campaign is that he has way too much influence, doesn't listen to anybody else and whilst very clever doesn't relate to the average person.
If Lynton runs the campaign from now on then things will be fine-if he doesn't then we will win but it will feel like a defeat.
She's the fucking leader. She should tell him to shut the F up with his daft ideas. It's her failure. Sorry.
I think it is a good move, despite them to take a hit for it, but I agree with you on that. It's like all that stuff about Hammond being useless and needing to be sacked for proposing NI changes - she signed off on it, ok if he proposed it that's one thing, but she's the leader she has to spot it.
Same as Corbyn's defenders always blaming his critics and the media, when as the leader it is his job to overcome opponents. Which to be fair he is doing at the moment.
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
Brexit. The second referendum pledge has been extremely poorly received.
Electoral maths suggests if May gets 46, and the polling says she ought to, she will have a big majority. The Tories just need to hammer on Corbyn, GOTV and strong and stable Brexit and convert intention to votes and she will romp home.
I hope the Thai tonight was OK....
I wonder how the Golden Triangle would react knowing there was a True Blue buried deep underneath the wire....
I'd love Corbyn to win...he won't......but the Tories are so hypocritical....they have plunged the UK into chaos, risked the Union, Nato, the EU.... to manage their petty rightwing battles...and they have the cheek to claim Corbyn is a risk after such reckless damage they have wilfully created.....
Tories are wankers with a capital W followed by the ANKER.....and the S because they are a plurality.....
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it’s a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
As you have written TAXES in capital letters, let’s hear your policy suggestion.
How do you plan to pay for social care?
The only other suggestion I have heard so far is a National Care Service, which will need substantial TAXES. My rough calculation suggest if it was paid for by income TAX alone, it would need an extra 3p in the pound.
I don't propose to solve the problem because I'm not standing for Parliament.
But on the other hand I sure as hell wouldn't slip the home snatcher policy into a manifesto at the last minute without properly focus grouping it or looking at alternatives.
It's one of those problems you deal with WHEN you've won the big majority, not the sort of puppy-kicking ideas you announce as the central plank of your manifesto three weeks before a vote.
To deliver this policy as it stands, in the way it's been delivered, is an astonishing own goal.
Give me some respect. I said these policies were a dreadful example of big fucking hairy bollocks from the beginning. Right from the start. Right from the get-go.
I was right. Sadly, sadly. I was right.
HOW TO HALVE YOUR LEAD IN 48 HOURS, A SEMINAR BY THERESA MAY
I'm surprised. But kudos to you. Red faces all round.
Hardly - plenty of people said there would be a poll hit, they just argue that panicking is not the answer and questioned how big a hit it would be.
Even I am warming to Corbyn. Good campaigner. And some (not all, far from it) decent policies that have the advantage of being easy to communicate. Railways back in public control. Everyone thinks they understand that even if they don't really understand it. That said, still think May will win big, in the end.
I'm not warming to him, but he has had a decent campaign - the manifesto is a spendathon, but people like the policies of course (we'll see if they think it credible), and unlike some of his shadow ministers, he's not cocked up.
Bang on. This is a policy cunningly and brilliantly designed to alienate EXACTLY the voters TMay needs. They won't read the details, they will grasp the implications (and they won't be entirely wrong).
If you were to give a member of the Labour campaign a wish for the Tory manifesto that would be granted it would be something like "a policy that will piss off all the old bastards who always vote Tory". Amazingly May has given Labour that, and thrown in the WFA for free.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Excellent post .I live in York a small three bed semi detached is ,220 to ,250 k.Any threat to that in any way is scary in some cases more than Corbyn.
How do PBers who expect to receive a substantial inheritance and don't want to lose any of it to care home expenses think the costs of care should be funded?
By the way, I object to the view of some on this site that anyone who doesn't own a home outright by the time they retire is by definition feckless, useless and lazy. The people who provide frontline care to other people's parents in care homes are unlikely to earn the type of money that would allow them to ever own £500k+ homes.
I agree that the presentation of this policy has been mishandled but there seems to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding and/or ignorance about care funding on this site.
I looked after my father in my own home in the early stages of his vascular dementia but it got to the point where I could no longer look after him safely at home and had to look at the options for residential care.
Prediction: Corbyn's football tax will go down well with people who actually go to football matches. Only a tiny fraction of football fans watch the big four, so this Tranmere Rovers stuff will help him. (Whether it is in any way practical I doubt but popular? - quite possibly)
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who said say nothing? It would be easy to just put one or two lines in "we will seek to reform social care and fully fund it by the end of 2022".
That's literally all they needed and they could have just kept the plans secret until after the election.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Yes! Thank you! Some of the posters who are saying this policy is just fine would be vitriolic if orbyn dared to propose such a policy.
I am saying this proposal is better than what exists at the moment for dementia sufferers who live in residential homes.
I say this from the experience of watching my mother decline & die from Parkison's dementia over 5 years in homes for which her family paid all the bills.
All I am asking you or kyf to do is explain what your policy is, and what it costs.
Just one more major error from the Tories divides us from a Hung Parliament. That's how shit she is.
I was right about these social care policies, but I fear you were right about TMay, and I was deluding myself. She's just Not Corbyn. That's her only appeal.
I despise her nannying policies and she isn't even any good at low, cunning politics, on the basis of this campaign, so far.
Sigh.
I take no pleasure in being right on Mrs May.
There's one person who is really depressed tonight.
George Osborne, if he had decided to stand again as an MP....
He should have bloody stood. I can see the party getting rid as soon as Brexit is done. She will lose badly to a sane Labour party.
If it is any consolation, I did urge him to stand again.
Fwiw, one of the two donors who refused is a Brexit backer, the other was a Remainer. Both take the same (dim) view of her meddling in business regulation and the, frankly stupid, energy cap. I've known both for a while now and not seen them agree on much.
It's the religious pay audit that got me.
It'll be amusing for the likes of you and me, and the consultants in the NHS.
That is bonkers, certainly.
What, in God's good name, is the "religious pay audit"?? Is this another Tory manifesto lunacy that I missed??
Just one more major error from the Tories divides us from a Hung Parliament. That's how shit she is.
I was right about these social care policies, but I fear you were right about TMay, and I was deluding myself. She's just Not Corbyn. That's her only appeal.
I despise her nannying policies and she isn't even any good at low, cunning politics, on the basis of this campaign, so far.
Sigh.
I take no pleasure in being right on Mrs May.
There's one person who is really depressed tonight.
George Osborne, if he had decided to stand again as an MP....
He should have bloody stood. I can see the party getting rid as soon as Brexit is done. She will lose badly to a sane Labour party.
If it is any consolation, I did urge him to stand again.
Fwiw, one of the two donors who refused is a Brexit backer, the other was a Remainer. Both take the same (dim) view of her meddling in business regulation and the, frankly stupid, energy cap. I've known both for a while now and not seen them agree on much.
It's the religious pay audit that got me.
It'll be amusing for the likes of you and me, and the consultants in the NHS.
That is bonkers, certainly.
What, in God's good name, is the "religious pay audit"?? Is this another Tory manifesto lunacy that I missed??
You're looking at this from the wrong angle. I didn't ask how it plays out for _you_, I asked how it would look if you were that person, with the 450k home as your only major asset.
The answer probably isn't "well, I'm sitting on a 400k unearned asset, whoop-de-doo for me" the answer is probably "I grew up with nothing, worked hard all my life, now that Theresa May has come along and said she's going to take the house I raised my kids in, the house I wanted to leave to them, to pay for my old age, even though I've paid my taxes my entire life".
This is TERRIBLE for the Conservatives. And terrible with the kind of voters they should be winning over - older, lower-middle-class, small c conservative types.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
As a percentage rate of return, though, over say 30 years, has it been so terribly different to equities? (NB not just stock price index, including reinvestment of dividends.) Of course for most people their main investment is in bricks and mortar rather than a share portfolio, but someone who worked hard and poured their savings into building up a portfolio and did well out of it over a couple of decades wouldn't cop the same flak as someone who benefitted from an "unearned (and by implication, undeserved) rise in house prices."
House prices *trebled* from 1995 to 2007. That's equivalent to a 10% return pa compound for twelve years in succession. Plus it's not taxed as profit, whereas your hypothetical share portfolio would attract tax.
Admittedly it's peak-to-trough, but it's illustrative: things really did change, and the distortion does affect things.
I think this discussion is really relevant to TM's care tax proposal.
The flip side of the *social care problem* that TM is proposing to *fix* - is the house price/cost of living problem for care workers.
If we could halve house prices/rents - the cost of care (homecare especially) would come waaay down.
High house prices + brexit means brexit (fewer EU care workers) means care costs will remain high and probably keep on going up.
She's absolutely right to link care costs to housing assets - and especially so now we're entering brexit.
For anyone getting enthusiastic about Labour , a quarter of their 34% on Survation is made up of 'Others/Did Not Votes.'
It is why I am predicting huuuge polling miss.
OTOH one of Corbyn's seeking points was he would explictly attract DNVs sooooo maybe?
Well it was one of Ed M's too, although Corbyn seems to be doing better with it, and maybe the fact the DNVs well, DNV in 2015 and so the Tories won shook enough of them to actually do it this time.
Politics has made a lot of unexpected moves in recent years; lazy assumptions have been confounded. In 2010 we were told to expect close on 100 Lib Dems,but the Cleggasm fizzled. In 2015 the Tories ate the LoiDems and won a majority when NOM was supposedly nailed on. Post-2015 Labour was expected to move back to a centrist position yet ended up lurching hard left. In 2016 Remain was a dead-cert but lost. In 2017 Labour was to crash to 25% and the LibDems surge, yet what we now have is the return of two party dominance not seen since the 1970s. Corbyn may even end up with highest losing Labour vote share since Jim Callaghan in 1979.
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who said say nothing? It would be easy to just put one or two lines in "we will seek to reform social care and fully fund it by the end of 2022".
That's literally all they needed and they could have just kept the plans secret until after the election.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
Do you know until yesterday I was a conservative voter; or rather I thought I was. I'm certainly a "Leaver".
But I've changed my mind. Not because of the social care stuff (though I do disagree with it and feel the costs should be shared) but because it's flushed out some of the views of the free marketeers, and in particular how they talk about tbe rest of us, and how little they care.
Sadly I will probably still have to vote conservative this time - but please, come back New Labour, we need you.
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
If it's any consolation, Richard, this sane Labour voter moved that way today. Ballot paper in the post.
Electoral maths suggests if May gets 46, and the polling says she ought to, she will have a big majority. The Tories just need to hammer on Corbyn, GOTV and strong and stable Brexit and convert intention to votes and she will romp home.
I hope the Thai tonight was OK....
I wonder how the Golden Triangle would react knowing there was a True Blue buried deep underneath the wire....
I'd love Corbyn to win...he won't......but the Tories are so hypocritical....they have plunged the UK into chaos, risked the Union, Nato, the EU.... to manage their petty rightwing battles...and they have the cheek to claim Corbyn is a risk after such reckless damage they have wilfully created.....
Tories are wankers with a capital W followed by the ANKER.....and the S because they are a plurality.....
The Thai was sublime. There's no true blue here, I am ambivalent to the result as I despise the three big parties at this time. I really hate Corbyn though so I admit a part of me wants to enjoy him getting his comeuppance for being useless. I shall be a shade of Green on June 8 and looking for 2 seats and a handful of seconds. I don't particularly love the Greens either but there is no old school continuity liberal to vote for here.
Give me some respect. I said these policies were a dreadful example of big fucking hairy bollocks from the beginning. Right from the start. Right from the get-go.
I was right. Sadly, sadly. I was right.
HOW TO HALVE YOUR LEAD IN 48 HOURS, A SEMINAR BY THERESA MAY
I'm surprised. But kudos to you. Red faces all round.
Hardly - plenty of people said there would be a poll hit, they just argue that panicking is not the answer and questioned how big a hit it would be.
Even I am warming to Corbyn. Good campaigner. And some (not all, far from it) decent policies that have the advantage of being easy to communicate. Railways back in public control. Everyone thinks they understand that even if they don't really understand it. That said, still think May will win big, in the end.
Ed Miliband would win this election with a swagger. That's how shit the Tories are.
Rubbish, May's Tory poll score is higher than any Tory leader has got at a general election for over 40 years, she is not aiming for libertarian millionaire thriller writers living in Primrose Hill but white working class and lower middle class voters North of Watford
Give me some respect. I said these policies were a dreadful example of big fucking hairy bollocks from the beginning. Right from the start. Right from the get-go.
I was right. Sadly, sadly. I was right.
HOW TO HALVE YOUR LEAD IN 48 HOURS, A SEMINAR BY THERESA MAY
I'm surprised. But kudos to you. Red faces all round.
Hardly - plenty of people said there would be a poll hit, they just argue that panicking is not the answer and questioned how big a hit it would be.
Even I am warming to Corbyn. Good campaigner. And some (not all, far from it) decent policies that have the advantage of being easy to communicate. Railways back in public control. Everyone thinks they understand that even if they don't really understand it. That said, still think May will win big, in the end.
Ed Miliband would win this election with a swagger. That's how shit the Tories are.
Because we're fighting on his turf. It's a disaster for any centre right person, Theresa May has shifted the centre of politics to the left in order to increase her majority from 12 to ~50. The 2022 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
Brexit. The second referendum pledge has been extremely poorly received.
Sure, it's bonkers however you look at it. But you'd have thought that there'd be at least a reasonable number of soft-left internationalist/Europhile types who'd be prepared to overlook that.
Just backed Labour to win >162.5 seats at 5/6 with Hills, Laddies' corresponding strike price is 167.5 seats. Meanwhile Spreadex mid-spread for Labour seats is 169 (i.e. 166 - 172). Hills price can't last but DYOR.
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
The Lib Dems have wilfully vacated the field by focusing on a single issue which was decided the other way a year ago. They're simply irrelevant.
Do you know until yesterday I was a conservative voter; or rather I thought I was. I'm certainly a "Leaver".
But I've changed my mind. Not because of the social care stuff (though I do disagree with it and feel the costs should be shared) but because it's flushed out some of the views of the free marketeers, and in particular how they talk about tbe rest of us, and how little they care.
Sadly I will probably still have to vote conservative this time - but please, come back New Labour, we need you.
The centre in British politics is a waste land. It has been trashed.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
If it's any consolation, Richard, this sane Labour voter moved that way today. Ballot paper in the post.
Just one more major error from the Tories divides us from a Hung Parliament. That's how shit she is.
I was right about these social care policies, but I fear you were right about TMay, and I was deluding myself. She's just Not Corbyn. That's her only appeal.
I despise her nannying policies and she isn't even any good at low, cunning politics, on the basis of this campaign, so far.
Sigh.
I take no pleasure in being right on Mrs May.
There's one person who is really depressed tonight.
George Osborne, if he had decided to stand again as an MP....
He should have bloody stood. I can see the party getting rid as soon as Brexit is done. She will lose badly to a sane Labour party.
If it is any consolation, I did urge him to stand again.
Fwiw, one of the two donors who refused is a Brexit backer, the other was a Remainer. Both take the same (dim) view of her meddling in business regulation and the, frankly stupid, energy cap. I've known both for a while now and not seen them agree on much.
It's the religious pay audit that got me.
It'll be amusing for the likes of you and me, and the consultants in the NHS.
That is bonkers, certainly.
What, in God's good name, is the "religious pay audit"?? Is this another Tory manifesto lunacy that I missed??
Bang on. This is a policy cunningly and brilliantly designed to alienate EXACTLY the voters TMay needs. They won't read the details, they will grasp the implications (and they won't be entirely wrong).
If you were to give a member of the Labour campaign a wish for the Tory manifesto that would be granted it would be something like "a policy that will piss off all the old bastards who always vote Tory". Amazingly May has given Labour that, and thrown in the WFA for free.
WFA, Pensions Triple Lock and Social Care - the Tories actively decided to upset some of their core elderly vote. Now, people are not irrational, and there will be plenty of non-stupid people around May and co, so you have to assume they knew each of those policies will be unpopular with that group.
So they must assume the rest of the offer, including leadership, will be popular enough to overcome that, and that it is a good idea for governance to announce these things now rather than hide them, or they think it will be popular enough with others to make up for it. It simply makes no sense otherwise, as they'd not assume these would be popular with that core vote.
Now, do people dislike Corbyn enough to ensure May still wins comfortably? It would appear so, but perhaps they miscalculated how much people dislike Corbyn, and so it has caused more of an issue that they thought. Nevertheless, they knew it was going to be unpopular and included it anyway, and if we think it a good policy, that honesty should be applauded even if the presentation is bad. If it is a bad policy, obviously it was a foolish move.
As a percentage rate of return, though, over say 30 years, has it been so terribly different to equities? (NB not just stock price index, including reinvestment of dividends.) Of course for most people their main investment is in bricks and mortar rather than a share portfolio, but someone who worked hard and poured their savings into building up a portfolio and did well out of it over a couple of decades wouldn't cop the same flak as someone who benefitted from an "unearned (and by implication, undeserved) rise in house prices."
If you were building up your share portfolio with the same leverage as someone buying a house on a mortgage - well point one you just wouldn't, and point 2 you would be in prison because you would have had to lie through your teeth to get anyone to lend you that much money for that purpose. And without leverage you're nowhere near the house buyer.
This is an entirely fair point and I was actually going to mention the leverage thing except that I was running out of space and didn't want to delete any more of the inner-nested quotes!
Another problem with the comparison is that your main residence isn't something you should be buying primarily in the hopes of generating financial returns (and there are countries e.g. Germany where house prices have remained essentially static over decades), whereas with equities chasing a return is the whole point.
I am, however, wary of the way that homeowners who have gained from house price inflation get discussed - that they have benefitted from a windfall they did nothing to earn so it doesn't matter if it is taken back off them, for example. Obviously there are inter-generational issues in play here. However, once someone has experienced a rise in the values of their assets, they do change their financial planning around it - I am sure it has been a factor in many an early retirement decision. In this respect all forms of government asset grabbing (mansion taxes, wealth taxes, fiddling with pensions etc) end up having a kind of retroactive effect, penalising decisions taken many years ago under a different set of rules. Income taxes have many disadvantages, but at least they are up-front, unstealthy and you know exactly what the (dis)incentives are.
I feel uneasy when I see homeowner gains presented simply as however many hundred thousand pounds over multiple decades. Supplementing this with a rate of return, and some kind of comparable, puts things into a better context.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
I think it's likely because it's a policy outcome that will take a while to sink in for a lot of people. And when it does they will hate it.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
How do PBers who expect to receive a substantial inheritance and don't want to lose any of it to care home expenses think the costs of care should be funded?
By the way, I object to the view of some on this site that anyone who doesn't own a home outright by the time they retire is by definition feckless, useless and lazy. The people who provide frontline care to other people's parents in care homes are unlikely to earn the type of money that would allow them to ever own £500k+ homes.
I agree that the presentation of this policy has been mishandled but there seems to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding and/or ignorance about care funding on this site.
I looked after my father in my own home in the early stages of his vascular dementia but it got to the point where I could no longer look after him safely at home and had to look at the options for residential care.
I'm completely baffled - everyone's inheritance is already at risk to residential care home fees - down to just £23k. Now £100k will be protected.
As for in-home care costs - how much are they likely to be - the Council popping in for 15 mins twice a day - the cost will be absolute peanuts compared to the value of the home.
And anyone remotely wealthy will surely be using a private care agency anyway.
Is it really the case that there are lots of people sitting in homes worth £300k / £400k / £500k and they are relying on Council care for 15 mins twice a day?
Surely they'll end up paying anyway by going to a private care agency for a decent service to suit their needs. If they don't have the income to pay for it then they'll do an equity release. The care cost will be peanuts in comparison to the value of their home.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Yes! Thank you! Some of the posters who are saying this policy is just fine would be vitriolic if orbyn dared to propose such a policy.
I am saying this proposal is better than what exists at the moment for dementia sufferers who live in residential homes.
I say this from the experience of watching my mother decline & die from Parkison's dementia over 5 years in homes for which her family paid all the bills.
All I am asking you or kyf to do is explain what your policy is, and what it costs.
As far as I can tell, the view is that people like your mother should bear the brunt, and any changes should somehow be slipped through on the sly, post-election.
Prediction: Corbyn's football tax will go down well with people who actually go to football matches. Only a tiny fraction of football fans watch the big four, so this Tranmere Rovers stuff will help him. (Whether it is in any way practical I doubt but popular? - quite possibly)
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
Brexit. The second referendum pledge has been extremely poorly received.
Sure, it's bonkers however you look at it. But you'd have thought that there'd be at least a reasonable number of soft-left internationalist/Europhile types who'd be prepared to overlook that.
Tim Farron is the issue there. He's bloody terrible. I think we have three of the lowest quality leaders I can remember. The combined rating of all three is about 7/30 IMO (4 for Theresa, 2 for Corbyn and 1 for Farron). Last election Dave got that by himself IMO.
The truth is the Tories will be secretly pleased about these recent polls showing a smaller lead because it means there won't be any complacency from their supporters on polling day, and it will help to keep turnout up as well.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
Re iht 1m = Only if you have kids and leave the house to them. it's 850k in total this year rising by 50k pa over next few years
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Excellent post .I live in York a small three bed semi detached is ,220 to ,250 k.Any threat to that in any way is scary in some cases more than Corbyn.
Why should the state pay when you clearly have the resources to pay for yourself?
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
It isn't her it is Timothy-everything i hear from those close to the campaign is that he has way too much influence, doesn't listen to anybody else and whilst very clever doesn't relate to the average person.
If Lynton runs the campaign from now on then things will be fine-if he doesn't then we will win but it will feel like a defeat.
Timothy is a pound shop Letwin AIUI.
Worse At least Letwin was an MP and actually listened to a few other MP's
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who said say nothing? It would be easy to just put one or two lines in "we will seek to reform social care and fully fund it by the end of 2022".
That's literally all they needed and they could have just kept the plans secret until after the election.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
The surveys above preceed the social care furore.
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
The truth is the Tories will be secretly pleased about these recent polls showing a smaller lead because it means there won't be any complacency from their supporters on polling day, and it will help to keep turnout up as well.
If they are running around like headless chickens they may not make it to the polling place
The 2022 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Never mind 2022.
The 2017 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Labour are going to talk about Dementia Tax and WFA nonstop until polling day. If the Tories gets dragged into this they will likely start losing vote share.
Electoral maths suggests if May gets 46, and the polling says she ought to, she will have a big majority. The Tories just need to hammer on Corbyn, GOTV and strong and stable Brexit and convert intention to votes and she will romp home.
I hope the Thai tonight was OK....
I wonder how the Golden Triangle would react knowing there was a True Blue buried deep underneath the wire....
I'd love Corbyn to win...he won't......but the Tories are so hypocritical....they have plunged the UK into chaos, risked the Union, Nato, the EU.... to manage their petty rightwing battles...and they have the cheek to claim Corbyn is a risk after such reckless damage they have wilfully created.....
Tories are wankers with a capital W followed by the ANKER.....and the S because they are a plurality.....
The Thai was sublime. There's no true blue here, I am ambivalent to the result as I despise the three big parties at this time. I really hate Corbyn though so I admit a part of me wants to enjoy him getting his comeuppance for being useless. I shall be a shade of Green on June 8 and looking for 2 seats and a handful of seconds. I don't particularly love the Greens either but there is no old school continuity liberal to vote for here.
I thought the name dyedwoolie...was a claim to be a true blue....so sorry to have maligned you...my mistake....
Executive summary: everyone now agrees that Cameron and Osborne weren't so bad at this politics malarkey after all, right?
I'm going weak and wibbly with Corbyn going within 9 points. The third party squeeze is well and truly on in the East Midlands now
Third party squeeze is right, and was of course happening before the latest hysteria. It's an oddity, certainly. You can see why nutty Green extreme lefties might head Corbynwards, but why aren't the LibDems benefiting from sane Labour supporters moving their way? It's mysterious.
If it's any consolation, Richard, this sane Labour voter moved that way today. Ballot paper in the post.
We do agree I'm sane, no?
Are you asking Richard specifically or is it an open question?
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
Survation was after and they had the Tories on 46%.
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
It isn't her it is Timothy-everything i hear from those close to the campaign is that he has way too much influence, doesn't listen to anybody else and whilst very clever doesn't relate to the average person.
If Lynton runs the campaign from now on then things will be fine-if he doesn't then we will win but it will feel like a defeat.
She's the fucking leader. She should tell him to shut the F up with his daft ideas. It's her failure. Sorry.
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
You may argue "oh, but you were potentially going to lose everyting down to your last 23k before" but the fact is most people don't read the fine print, they just hear DEMENTIA TAX which is like winning the reverse-lottery on top of an already terrifying and dehumanising condition.
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
Excellent post .I live in York a small three bed semi detached is ,220 to ,250 k.Any threat to that in any way is scary in some cases more than Corbyn.
But Corbyn thinks that property is basically theft, and that we should all just accept what the council gives us. Let's all remember what the alternative looks like for a minute, my parents' generation can certainly remember it.
The truth is the Tories will be secretly pleased about these recent polls showing a smaller lead because it means there won't be any complacency from their supporters on polling day, and it will help to keep turnout up as well.
Prediction: Corbyn's football tax will go down well with people who actually go to football matches. Only a tiny fraction of football fans watch the big four, so this Tranmere Rovers stuff will help him. (Whether it is in any way practical I doubt but popular? - quite possibly)
Football tax? WTF?
Some proportion of Premier League TV income will be confiscated and given to the FA to be wasted on some scheme or other.
The 2022 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Never mind 2022.
The 2017 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Labour are going to talk about Dementia Tax and WFA nonstop until polling day. If the Tories gets dragged into this they will likely start losing vote share.
The Tories are still on 44% and 46% even post manifesto Labour, higher than they have got at a general election for decades, let Corbyn do anything for a vote but it is May the voters want taking the tough decisions
The truth is the Tories will be secretly pleased about these recent polls showing a smaller lead because it means there won't be any complacency from their supporters on polling day, and it will help to keep turnout up as well.
Tweak sensibly, win by 20.
What would your proposed tweak be? Increasing the exemption?
How do PBers who expect to receive a substantial inheritance and don't want to lose any of it to care home expenses think the costs of care should be funded?
By the way, I object to the view of some on this site that anyone who doesn't own a home outright by the time they retire is by definition feckless, useless and lazy. The people who provide frontline care to other people's parents in care homes are unlikely to earn the type of money that would allow them to ever own £500k+ homes.
I agree that the presentation of this policy has been mishandled but there seems to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding and/or ignorance about care funding on this site.
I looked after my father in my own home in the early stages of his vascular dementia but it got to the point where I could no longer look after him safely at home and had to look at the options for residential care.
I'm completely baffled - everyone's inheritance is already at risk to residential care home fees - down to just £23k. Now £100k will be protected.
As for in-home care costs - how much are they likely to be - the Council popping in for 15 mins twice a day - the cost will be absolute peanuts compared to the value of the home.
And anyone remotely wealthy will surely be using a private care agency anyway.
Is it really the case that there are lots of people sitting in homes worth £300k / £400k / £500k and they are relying on Council care for 15 mins twice a day?
Surely they'll end up paying anyway by going to a private care agency for a decent service to suit their needs. If they don't have the income to pay for it then they'll do an equity release. The care cost will be peanuts in comparison to the value of their home.
A lot of people won't know the current situation (I didn't until today). There is a possibility that 'they will take your house' catches on, but if that is so, and the opposition push it, it will be cynical bullshit while they still haven't' explained how their own plan would work, while the Tories are trying to grasp the nettle. There may well be more complicated issues with their plans which are not part of why most people are objecting, so in fact the hysteria is doing a disservice even to scrutiny of this policy, as people react to what they think it is doing, not its true problems.
These overreacting Tories are pushing me closer every minute to a Tory vote for the first time ever.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
80% of people receiving Social Care do not receive residential care. They get care at home. There home was 100% safe till Thursday.
The truth is the Tories will be secretly pleased about these recent polls showing a smaller lead because it means there won't be any complacency from their supporters on polling day, and it will help to keep turnout up as well.
If they are running around like headless chickens they may not make it to the polling place
The Tories will probably be wishing that UKIP was standing in 600 constituencies again because Labour are probably going to pick up some votes in certain areas due to the lack of a UKIP candidate in constituencies where people still tribally hate the Tories so much that they can't contemplate voting for them, like Merseyside. For example UKIP came second in Bootle in 2015 with 11% but aren't standing this time. Most of those votes will probably go back to Labour.
Electoral maths suggests if May gets 46, and the polling says she ought to, she will have a big majority. The Tories just need to hammer on Corbyn, GOTV and strong and stable Brexit and convert intention to votes and she will romp home.
I hope the Thai tonight was OK....
I wonder how the Golden Triangle would react knowing there was a True Blue buried deep underneath the wire....
I'd love Corbyn to win...he won't......but the Tories are so hypocritical....they have plunged the UK into chaos, risked the Union, Nato, the EU.... to manage their petty rightwing battles...and they have the cheek to claim Corbyn is a risk after such reckless damage they have wilfully created.....
Tories are wankers with a capital W followed by the ANKER.....and the S because they are a plurality.....
The Thai was sublime. There's no true blue here, I am ambivalent to the result as I despise the three big parties at this time. I really hate Corbyn though so I admit a part of me wants to enjoy him getting his comeuppance for being useless. I shall be a shade of Green on June 8 and looking for 2 seats and a handful of seconds. I don't particularly love the Greens either but there is no old school continuity liberal to vote for here.
I thought the name dyedwoolie...was a claim to be a true blue....so sorry to have maligned you...my mistake....
Former Tory who abandoned them after it became obvious trickle down economics was just wealth transfer from public to private pockets. Cannot see me voting blue ever again.
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who sn.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
The surveys above preceed the social care furore.
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
Re iht 1m = Only if you have kids and leave the house to them. it's 850k in total this year rising by 50k pa over next few years
Through married couples allowance of £175 000 each added to the £325 000 threshold you get to a million
The 2022 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Never mind 2022.
The 2017 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Labour are going to talk about Dementia Tax and WFA nonstop until polling day. If the Tories gets dragged into this they will likely start losing vote share.
No, I think we'll still get a 50-60 seat majotity, but 2022 will be really tough as Labour won't be too far behind and a sane leader will destroy Theresa.
Or say that "lunch won't be free, but we're not sure how much it will cost in the future". Don't say "lunch is going to leave your kids without an inheritance or possibly homeless if you live in the south east".
I very much doubt that anybody would be left homeless because of this policy. How many children of elderly parents in need of years of home care still live at home with said parents? And how many of those would be reduced to sleeping on a park bench with a substantial inheritance guaranteed at the end of that period? Zero.
The kids would get their bag of cash and they wouldn't be reduced to penury, or anywhere close. And in the average household outside of Southern England, even for those who need a lot of expensive home care the *majority* of the value of their homes would be preserved.
This is a problem particularly for wealthy people and their heirs in the South, and will probably cause quite a lot of grumbling and whingeing and stick-banging and "but I paid my taxes!" and tut-tut-tutting. But swathes of Buckinghamshire and Surrey are not about to turn red. The one thing that's guaranteed to do their personal finances more harm than entering the home care lottery is opting for socialism - and even if some do throw a total wobblystrop and rebel, the Tories' majorities in these areas are so huge that they'll hold comfortably, even if (and it's a big if) the revolt of the wealthy homeowners is sufficient to cancel out the mass of ex-Ukippers stampeding in the other direction.
In less well-off regions of the country, the policy will be much less controversial. Indeed, getting the wealthy to cough up for their own care, rather than the general taxpayer, might actually be received favourably by some voters.
200 deliveries or canvassing for Clegg next weekend still. He's still in desperate trouble
Against who though ?
Who knows. My calculations say Labour
I say the Blue Meanies.
You can take both the 4/1 on Labour and the 8/1 on the Tories and still win.
2015 results:
Liberal Democrat 22,215 Labour 19,862 Conservative 7,544 UKIP 3,575
If the Lib Dems really are polling at 7-8% and mostly from Labour switchers, that 4/1 looks fantastic, especially if you can stick a few quid on the Conservatives as well as an insurance bet.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
80% of people receiving Social Care do not receive residential care. They get care at home. There home was 100% safe till Thursday.
If you get dementia, you'll be in a care home sooner or later, unless you die first.
WFA, Pensions Triple Lock and Social Care - the Tories actively decided to upset some of their core elderly vote. Now, people are not irrational, and there will be plenty of non-stupid people around May and co, so you have to assume they knew each of those policies will be unpopular with that group.
So they must assume the rest of the offer, including leadership, will be popular enough to overcome that, and that it is a good idea for governance to announce these things now rather than hide them, or they think it will be popular enough with others to make up for it. It simply makes no sense otherwise, as they'd not assume these would be popular with that core vote.
Now, do people dislike Corbyn enough to ensure May still wins comfortably? It would appear so, but perhaps they miscalculated how much people dislike Corbyn, and so it has caused more of an issue that they thought. Nevertheless, they knew it was going to be unpopular and included it anyway, and if we think it a good policy, that honesty should be applauded even if the presentation is bad. If it is a bad policy, obviously it was a foolish move.
I think you are discounting the possibility that it really is a combination of both bad policies and politics. I do wonder if the manifesto has been rushed, and I'm all but certain the actual campaigning strategy is only half-cooked.
The Tories could have easily gone for something like a commission to look for bold solutions to social care, not announce a policy that obviously has some problems, and is easily caricatured for attack by opponents.
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax riseteur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who said say nothing? It would be easy to just put one or two lines in "we will seek to reform social care and fully fund it by the end of 2022".
That's literally all they needed and they could have just kept the plans secret until after the election.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
The surveys above preceed the social care furore.
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
Jezza is Kinnock 1987 except more opportunist, this is wobbly Tuesday and Thatcher still won with a majority of 102
How do PBers who expect to receive a substantial inheritance and don't want to lose any of it to care home expenses think the costs of care should be funded?
By the way, I object to the view of some on this site that anyone who doesn't own a home outright by the time they retire is by definition feckless, useless and lazy. The people who provide frontline care to other people's parents in care homes are unlikely to earn the type of money that would allow them to ever own £500k+ homes.
I agree that the presentation of this policy has been mishandled but there seems to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding and/or ignorance about care funding on this site.
I looked after my father in my own home in the early stages of his vascular dementia but it got to the point where I could no longer look after him safely at home and had to look at the options for residential care.
I'm completely baffled - everyone's inheritance is already at risk to residential care home fees - down to just £23k. Now £100k will be protected.
As for in-home care costs - how much are they likely to be - the Council popping in for 15 mins twice a day - the cost will be absolute peanuts compared to the value of the home.
And anyone remotely wealthy will surely be using a private care agency anyway.
Is it really the case that there are lots of people sitting in homes worth £300k / £400k / £500k and they are relying on Council care for 15 mins twice a day?
Surely they'll end up paying anyway by going to a private care agency for a decent service to suit their needs. If they don't have the income to pay for it then they'll do an equity release. The care cost will be peanuts in comparison to the value of their home.
A lot of people won't know the current situation (I didn't until today). There is a possibility that 'they will take your house' catches on, but if that is so, and the opposition push it, it will be cynical bullshit while they still haven't' explained how their own plan would work, while the Tories are trying to grasp the nettle. There may well be more complicated issues with their plans which are not part of why most people are objecting, so in fact the hysteria is doing a disservice even to scrutiny of this policy, as people react to what they think it is doing, not its true problems.
These overreacting Tories are pushing me closer every minute to a Tory vote for the first time ever.
'These overreacting Tories are pushing me closer every minute to a Tory vote for the first time ever.'
The idiocy of those Scottish Tories who tactically voted Labour in 2015 coming home to roost.
Probably seemed worth it at the time, hard to foresee just how huge the SNP tsunami would be (hard to believe a 30 point rise in Edinburgh SW was in the middle of the pack as far as rises went).
TMay needs to come out TOMORROW and say OK this policy is utter shit, we've changed our minds.
Heaven help us. This ridiculous, stupid, clueless, myopic little woman is leading the Brexit negotiations.
Sean, grow a pair. This Tory panic is getting fucking tedious. It happens every election at about three weeks out because the media are desperate for a story so they want the favourite to stumble.
Indeed, but we're not heading for a 100+ majority any more. 50+ is what we're looking at, this and the other moves have been Con -> Lab which means getting those direct swings required to make the Labour -> UKIP -> Con strategy work is going to be very tough.
I've come to the conclusion that Theresa May is a rubbish politician. Which isn't exactly great news for the country heading into what is the most important 2-3 year post-war period.
She's not. She's going to win a 50-60 seat majority (as I've been predicting from the start) and have a mandate to do some important stuff.
Who, other than a rubbish politician, launches a massive tax rise on old people with dementia in the middle of an election campaign. She didn't even prepare the ground by leaking something really horrible in advance. It's real amateur hour stuff.
Its called honesty and it is rather refreshing. The bottom line is that it is the right thing to do and she has (quite rightly) calculated that she will win a good majority even if this one policy is initially unpopular.
The alternative would have been to say nothing and then introduce it afterwards with all the outrage about it not having been in the manifesto and how you can't trust the Tories.
Personally I think it is a masterstroke.
Who sn.
Which is why people hate politicians, much better to be honest and deal with something that's been kicked down the road for far too long.
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
The surveys above preceed the social care furore.
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
When has May sneered at deplorables?
She has avoided them. Did you see my pm to you earlier?
Fair point. My point, which was orthogonal to yours instead of rebuttal, is that house prices have changed a lot over the past years.
I must confess I had to look orthagonal up!
I guess the received wisdom on here is that the people who hate the "dementia tax" are the well off in the south - the scenario I've painted above shows why I think it's absolutely devastating for the Tories in marginal northern constituencies with older small c conservative voters.
Your scenario is far-fetched. There are very few lower middle class voters with £450 k houses in Northern seats.
Let's reduce that to 300k, then. Or even 200k. There are a heck of a lot of lower middle class types with 250k-ish houses in what are now marginal constituencies.
Don't try telling them that 250k isn't a lot of money, or that being left with 100k to spread amongst kids and grandkids is just fine and dandy, when you were planning to give them 250k. They are people who worked hard all their lives - AND PAID TAXES - and expected to give their 250k or therabouts to their kids.
This is a generation of working class kids done good, who were sold on the lie of 'cradle to grave' in exchange for a life of taxation and to find that they are suddenly expected to give up 50-90% of their assets to pay for their medical bills, leaving their kids in a not much better position than they started out in themselves.
They are the savers and the small c conservative penny pinchers, and they will have friends and acquaintances who have lived more recklessly and will have 100k or less who will still be covered and they will look at this policy and go "that's the Tories for you, you can't win with them, they just aren't for people like you or me".
This is an utter turkey, a vote loser of the highest order. And it's a vote loser where the Tories need it most - with older, lower middle class voters whose main asset is their house.
I am saying this proposal is better than what exists at the moment for dementia sufferers who live in residential homes.
I say this from the experience of watching my mother decline & die from Parkison's dementia over 5 years in homes for which her family paid all the bills.
All I am asking you or kyf to do is explain what your policy is, and what it costs. </blockquot
I think for a start there should be a cap Cameron proposed £72,000, maybe the cap could be bigger or smaller depending on your totoal assests but not having a cap except the last £100,00....no I don't agree with. We had a commission which is being ignored.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
It'd f*ck up "strong and stable" big time though.
If TM backtracks on this, I'll be selling the tories on the spreads.
Changing her mind on this would completely screw up her messaging.
I actually wonder if the Tories could fall further if this meme takes hold. THE TORIES WILL TAKE YOUR HOUSE.
It threatens everyone, the old, the young, the middle class, the respectable working class. Blindingly, rhapsodically stupid.
They surely have no choice but to reverse and rethink. Whatever the intricate merits of the policy in itself (and they are arguable) it stinks from the start. It REEKS. It is the durian of manifesto commitments. Sure, it might taste good in the end, but it smells of overflowing toilets.
Your house was already taken if you had residential care and you were left with just £23k now you get £100k and Osborne took your house out of Inheritance tax for everyone with a property worth less than £1 million
80% of people receiving Social Care do not receive residential care. They get care at home. There home was 100% safe till Thursday.
Sadly, many of those people who receive Social Care will deteriorate and will have to move to residential care towards the end of their life. Then their home is not 100 per cent safe.
Comments
How do you plan to pay for social care?
The only other suggestion I have heard so far is a National Care Service, which will need substantial TAXES. My rough calculation suggest if it was paid for by income TAX alone, it would need an extra 3p in the pound.
We could get an ICM Sun on Sunday in the morning and then another ICM in The Guardian a couple of days later.
@theresa_may: If I lose just six seats I will lose this election and Jeremy Corbyn will be sitting down to negotiate with Europe: facebook.com/TheresaMayOffi…
Same as Corbyn's defenders always blaming his critics and the media, when as the leader it is his job to overcome opponents. Which to be fair he is doing at the moment.
I wonder how the Golden Triangle would react knowing there was a True Blue buried deep underneath the wire....
I'd love Corbyn to win...he won't......but the Tories are so hypocritical....they have plunged the UK into chaos, risked the Union, Nato, the EU.... to manage their petty rightwing battles...and they have the cheek to claim Corbyn is a risk after such reckless damage they have wilfully created.....
Tories are wankers with a capital W followed by the ANKER.....and the S because they are a plurality.....
But on the other hand I sure as hell wouldn't slip the home snatcher policy into a manifesto at the last minute without properly focus grouping it or looking at alternatives.
It's one of those problems you deal with WHEN you've won the big majority, not the sort of puppy-kicking ideas you announce as the central plank of your manifesto three weeks before a vote.
To deliver this policy as it stands, in the way it's been delivered, is an astonishing own goal.
By the way, I object to the view of some on this site that anyone who doesn't own a home outright by the time they retire is by definition feckless, useless and lazy. The people who provide frontline care to other people's parents in care homes are unlikely to earn the type of money that would allow them to ever own £500k+ homes.
I agree that the presentation of this policy has been mishandled but there seems to be a lot of wilful misunderstanding and/or ignorance about care funding on this site.
I looked after my father in my own home in the early stages of his vascular dementia but it got to the point where I could no longer look after him safely at home and had to look at the options for residential care.
OTOH one of Corbyn's seeking points was he would explictly attract DNVs sooooo maybe?
After all this furore we're still on 46%, maybe the people can cope with the occasional dose of honesty.
I say this from the experience of watching my mother decline & die from Parkison's dementia over 5 years in homes for which her family paid all the bills.
All I am asking you or kyf to do is explain what your policy is, and what it costs.
All I need is the Race Relations Acts, if that.
Not once in nearly seventeen years of continuous employment have I ever thought, oh I'm getting paid less because of my background.
I'm actually getting paid a lot more than the going rate for my job.
The flip side of the *social care problem* that TM is proposing to *fix* - is the house price/cost of living problem for care workers.
If we could halve house prices/rents - the cost of care (homecare especially) would come waaay down.
High house prices + brexit means brexit (fewer EU care workers) means care costs will remain high and probably keep on going up.
She's absolutely right to link care costs to housing assets - and especially so now we're entering brexit.
This is what the elderly voted for last June.
Still behind the Tories though.
But I've changed my mind. Not because of the social care stuff (though I do disagree with it and feel the costs should be shared) but because it's flushed out some of the views of the free marketeers, and in particular how they talk about tbe rest of us, and how little they care.
Sadly I will probably still have to vote conservative this time - but please, come back New Labour, we need you.
We do agree I'm sane, no?
I shall be a shade of Green on June 8 and looking for 2 seats and a handful of seconds. I don't particularly love the Greens either but there is no old school continuity liberal to vote for here.
Hills price can't last but DYOR.
So they must assume the rest of the offer, including leadership, will be popular enough to overcome that, and that it is a good idea for governance to announce these things now rather than hide them, or they think it will be popular enough with others to make up for it. It simply makes no sense otherwise, as they'd not assume these would be popular with that core vote.
Now, do people dislike Corbyn enough to ensure May still wins comfortably? It would appear so, but perhaps they miscalculated how much people dislike Corbyn, and so it has caused more of an issue that they thought. Nevertheless, they knew it was going to be unpopular and included it anyway, and if we think it a good policy, that honesty should be applauded even if the presentation is bad. If it is a bad policy, obviously it was a foolish move.
Another problem with the comparison is that your main residence isn't something you should be buying primarily in the hopes of generating financial returns (and there are countries e.g. Germany where house prices have remained essentially static over decades), whereas with equities chasing a return is the whole point.
I am, however, wary of the way that homeowners who have gained from house price inflation get discussed - that they have benefitted from a windfall they did nothing to earn so it doesn't matter if it is taken back off them, for example. Obviously there are inter-generational issues in play here. However, once someone has experienced a rise in the values of their assets, they do change their financial planning around it - I am sure it has been a factor in many an early retirement decision. In this respect all forms of government asset grabbing (mansion taxes, wealth taxes, fiddling with pensions etc) end up having a kind of retroactive effect, penalising decisions taken many years ago under a different set of rules. Income taxes have many disadvantages, but at least they are up-front, unstealthy and you know exactly what the (dis)incentives are.
I feel uneasy when I see homeowner gains presented simply as however many hundred thousand pounds over multiple decades. Supplementing this with a rate of return, and some kind of comparable, puts things into a better context.
As for in-home care costs - how much are they likely to be - the Council popping in for 15 mins twice a day - the cost will be absolute peanuts compared to the value of the home.
And anyone remotely wealthy will surely be using a private care agency anyway.
Is it really the case that there are lots of people sitting in homes worth £300k / £400k / £500k and they are relying on Council care for 15 mins twice a day?
Surely they'll end up paying anyway by going to a private care agency for a decent service to suit their needs. If they don't have the income to pay for it then they'll do an equity release. The care cost will be peanuts in comparison to the value of their home.
At least Letwin was an MP and actually listened to a few other MP's
Jezza has been running a much slicker campaign than tyhe Tories. Jezza is Trump, full of ridiculous unsustainable policies, campaigning at rallies rather than conventionally. May is Hillary, sneering at tbe deplorables and with a whiff of entitlement. Voters dont like being taken for granted.
The 2017 election is going to be very tough unless we somehow bring the discussion back to Brexit and turn Theresa back into "Mrs Brexit - the patriotic choice" or whatever it was.
Labour are going to talk about Dementia Tax and WFA nonstop until polling day. If the Tories gets dragged into this they will likely start losing vote share.
These overreacting Tories are pushing me closer every minute to a Tory vote for the first time ever.
Plaid Cymru or the Tories will take Ynys Mon.
For the Tories to take it, they need Labour voters to vote Tory tactically to prevent Plaid.
The better Labour are doing nationally, the more unlikely this is.
If the polls remain as they are, I’d expect Plaid Cymru to take it.
The kids would get their bag of cash and they wouldn't be reduced to penury, or anywhere close. And in the average household outside of Southern England, even for those who need a lot of expensive home care the *majority* of the value of their homes would be preserved.
This is a problem particularly for wealthy people and their heirs in the South, and will probably cause quite a lot of grumbling and whingeing and stick-banging and "but I paid my taxes!" and tut-tut-tutting. But swathes of Buckinghamshire and Surrey are not about to turn red. The one thing that's guaranteed to do their personal finances more harm than entering the home care lottery is opting for socialism - and even if some do throw a total wobblystrop and rebel, the Tories' majorities in these areas are so huge that they'll hold comfortably, even if (and it's a big if) the revolt of the wealthy homeowners is sufficient to cancel out the mass of ex-Ukippers stampeding in the other direction.
In less well-off regions of the country, the policy will be much less controversial. Indeed, getting the wealthy to cough up for their own care, rather than the general taxpayer, might actually be received favourably by some voters.
Nah not having it - but lolz either way.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/20/jeremy-corbyns-10-year-association-group-denies-holocaust/
What a guy.
2015 results:
Liberal Democrat 22,215
Labour 19,862
Conservative 7,544
UKIP 3,575
If the Lib Dems really are polling at 7-8% and mostly from Labour switchers, that 4/1 looks fantastic, especially if you can stick a few quid on the Conservatives as well as an insurance bet.
The Tories could have easily gone for something like a commission to look for bold solutions to social care, not announce a policy that obviously has some problems, and is easily caricatured for attack by opponents.
As predicted by me for the last two days constantly - Dementia Tax has cut through and is an utter clusterf****
https://twitter.com/fractallogic1/status/866051323053191170/photo/1
I thought your advice was 'laugh and move on'?
Changing her mind on this would completely screw up her messaging.
No. It has to be;
Brexit means brexit.
No questions.
Your house is at risk.
Trust Mother Theresa.
(Shut up and vote conservative).