Paul Mason* writes Mail headline. Funny old world.
*coiner of dementia tax meme
However, despite opposition to the proposals, the public are not convinced that the moniker some have placed on the policy – the “Dementia Tax” – is fair; 37% think it is fair to call the policy the “Dementia Tax”, compared to 39% who think it’s unfair. ' http://survation.com/conservative-manifesto-poll/
Whether fair or not, it has cut through like a knife through Lurpak in a heatwave. Paul Mason coined the phrase. The Mail on Sunday splash on it.
Just like the 'bedroom tax' cut through for Miliband I suppose?
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.
And how much is the average in-home care cost?
30 mins per day @ approx £10 per hour would be approx £5 per day or just under £2k per year.
Compared to a home worth £200k / £300k / £400k etc.
It's absolutely laughable.
"Your house was already taken if you had residential care "
No, it wasn't. Not necessarily. There was a lifetime cap - to be introduced in 2019/20. It was around £100K, I forget exactly what the final figure was going to be.
You can plan for that.
Now we are in lottery land, only a bad, sick, evil form of lottery, where if the finger points at you - well you could be paying out £400K or £500K. It's an horrendous form of wealth tax. I personally don't have a problem with wealth tax. I do have a problem with it only applying to people who get dementia or Parkinson's or MS.
That, I think, is exactly the point. (And if it's a wealth tax, it's one which doesn't really affect the truly wealthy.) The precise details aren't, I think, all that relevant (and many voters don't in any event believe that governments will stick to policy details).
I'm not sure anyone who hasn't actually cared for a parent with dementia quite understands the emotions involved, either. The reaction to the policy might not be entirely logical, but that doesn't make it any less visceral.
I know the Mail on Sunday is slightly different to the Daily Mail .However if they both get on board with the dementia tax , May will change it and all her supporters on here will change with her.
They'll run with it for a couple of days, but quickly go back to Corbyn if they think there's the slightest chance of him actually closing the gap.
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
But you miss the point of the question, Sean, and it's an entirely serious one.
If Corbyn scores 35% at the GE, what are the chances of him standing down, or being stood down? Pretty close to zero I would say.
Personally I think he might survive on a much weaker performance than that, but 35% would surely make him bombproof, no? So it's starting to look like he will lead Labour into the 2022 election, yes?
Everybody happy?
Corbyn will not lead the Labour Party into 2022....he looks knackered now....but if one of those hard faced, rough Mancs takes over...Bailey or Rayner..... I'd be looking back to to the halycon days of Corbyn with romanticism.....
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
She won't fuck it up for the newcomers to the Tory fold though, they want immigration control and regained sovereignty and she will deliver it, she is getting more bluecollar support than the Tories have had in decades
I know the Mail on Sunday is slightly different to the Daily Mail .However if they both get on board with the dementia tax , May will change it and all her supporters on here will change with her.
They'll run with it for a couple of days, but quickly go back to Corbyn if they think there's the slightest chance of him actually closing the gap.
Yes. But this is a policy now that is on major newspaper watch. What will happen when she attempts a green paper on it in the Autumn?
For a start, presumably, Gideon will be slaying it from the Evening Standard as he was CoE when a lifetime cap was introduced (albeit with a delay).
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.
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
There is a school of thought that says she won't fight 2022, resigning after three years or so. She has Type 1 diabetes and will be 61 in October. Not my view, but there is that school of thought.
Well i certainly subscribe to it I offered Dr Fox £20 at evens that she will be gone by the end of the Party Conference 2020.
Happy to offer that to you
As soon as she goes, this Red Tory bollocks will go, as well. Racial audits, energy caps, internet censorship, ugh.
It is hated by most, I suspect.
I agree with the Internet Censorship....it may get rid of the some of the undesirables here...and I include myself in that number.....
Survation gives the Tories a bigger lead in the Midlands than the South, in the Midlands the Tories are ahead 56% to 32%, in the South by 54% to 31%. In London the Tories lead 48% to 34% while in the North Labour lead 47% to 44% and in Wales by 47% to 41%. In Scotland the SNP are down to just 38% with the Tories on 27% and Labour on 25%
Plenty of Tory bedwetting on here tonight. Just the same as at this stage in 2015.
The polls were always going to tighten from the absurd 25%+ leads of a few weeks ago. They generally do in election campaigns, even in 1997. It was ever thus.
Wake me up on 9th June when the same bedwetters are pulling an all-nighter on here and cracking open the bubbly and waxing lyrical about mother Theresa.
Night all.
Some of the wobbling is plain old-fashioned panic. Some of it is actually the product of "this is going too well, there has to be a catch" pessimism. I know I suffer from that.
I've crunched the numbers, and I'm reasonably sure that at the end of all of this the Conservative margin of victory will be no less than 12%. Neither Labour nor Corbyn are popular enough to get much beyond a third of the vote, even after the third parties have been squeezed hard. The only way the gap narrows further is if there's a miraculous revival of the Lib Dems or Ukip, AND that this happens primarily off the back of defections from the Tories; the former seems highly unlikely, and the latter total fantasy.
Note that all the focus on and wailing over the Tory manifesto is largely predicated on the assumption that this is, in effect, a one-horse race. The Labour manifesto has been largely written off (by voters as well as pundits, if what's coming out of focus groups is to be believed) as "Vote Labour and get a free kitten." Nobody gives a flying fuck what anybody else's manifesto says.
Last time at least we had a free owl. Much more interesting and unusual than a free kitten.
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
But you miss the point of the question, Sean, and it's an entirely serious one.
If Corbyn scores 35% at the GE, what are the chances of him standing down, or being stood down? Pretty close to zero I would say.
Personally I think he might survive on a much weaker performance than that, but 35% would surely make him bombproof, no? So it's starting to look like he will lead Labour into the 2022 election, yes?
Everybody happy?
Corbyn will not lead the Labour Party into 2022....he looks knackered now....but if one of those hard faced, rough Mancs takes over...Bailey or Rayner..... I'd be looking back to to the halycon days of Corbyn with romanticism.....
Do you think John Ashworth the shadow health secretary could do the job ? I have bet on him as compromise candidate to unite the party .
@Clown_Car_HQ.. if you edit your post and delete all the blockquote tags at the start (apart from the one with viewcode in it, your post should appear.
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
But you miss the point of the question, Sean, and it's an entirely serious one.
If Corbyn scores 35% at the GE, what are the chances of him standing down, or being stood down? Pretty close to zero I would say.
Personally I think he might survive on a much weaker performance than that, but 35% would surely make him bombproof, no? So it's starting to look like he will lead Labour into the 2022 election, yes?
Everybody happy?
Corbyn will not lead the Labour Party into 2022....he looks knackered now....but if one of those hard faced, rough Mancs takes over...Bailey or Rayner..... I'd be looking back to to the halycon days of Corbyn with romanticism.....
Give me PM Nick Clegg with the support of half of the tory/labour MPs - committed to a nice, soft, fluffy, purely theoretical, just-enough-to-respect-the-will-of-the-people brexit - and then life can return to normal.
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.
And how much is the average in-home care cost?
30 mins per day @ approx £10 per hour would be approx £5 per day or just under £2k per year.
Compared to a home worth £200k / £300k / £400k etc.
It's absolutely laughable.
"Your house was already taken if you had residential care "
No, it wasn't. Not necessarily. There was a lifetime cap - to be introduced in 2019/20. It was around £100K, I forget exactly what the final figure was going to be.
You can plan for that.
Now we are in lottery land, only a bad, sick, evil form of lottery, where if the finger points at you - well you could be paying out £400K or £500K. It's an horrendous form of wealth tax. I personally don't have a problem with wealth tax. I do have a problem with it only applying to people who get dementia or Parkinson's or MS.
But that lottery already exists for people in care homes, (apart from the last £23k). Why's it okay for them?
If Mrs May wins a majority of 150 odd on June 8th this thread's comments are going to be fun to review.
I'm sticking with my 124. Doubt if Tories will do as well as 150, but also don't see them doing any worse than around 80-90.
Even 80 would still be a very good win - although expectations have, of course, been raised so high now that some might treat it as a damp squib regardless.
Paul Mason* writes Mail headline. Funny old world.
*coiner of dementia tax meme
However, despite opposition to the proposals, the public are not convinced that the moniker some have placed on the policy – the “Dementia Tax” – is fair; 37% think it is fair to call the policy the “Dementia Tax”, compared to 39% who think it’s unfair. ' http://survation.com/conservative-manifesto-poll/
Whether fair or not, it has cut through like a knife through Lurpak in a heatwave. Paul Mason coined the phrase. The Mail on Sunday splash on it.
Just like the 'bedroom tax' cut through for Miliband I suppose?
The "bedroom taz* did not cause fear in Tory hearts. I suppose it impacts on " losers". Dementia is different
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
May should win this election comfortably despite this wobble.... BUT I think the next parliament will go to shit for the blues
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
My personal rule that every Labour leader must be worse than the last - a reliable political law ever since John Smith - must in the end come a cropper. Because it's hard to get worse than Jeremy Corbyn.
Clive Lewis. Starmer. Thornberry. They're not great but they are just about electable as PMs; they are not obviously inferior to the wooden, nannying TMay.
It all depends on Brexit. And if TMay fucks that up, Labour will win in 2022. And after this election campaign, I am much less confident of TMay delivering a decent Brexit.
But you miss the point of the question, Sean, and it's an entirely serious one.
If Corbyn scores 35% at the GE, what are the chances of him standing down, or being stood down? Pretty close to zero I would say.
Personally I think he might survive on a much weaker performance than that, but 35% would surely make him bombproof, no? So it's starting to look like he will lead Labour into the 2022 election, yes?
Everybody happy?
Corbyn will not lead the Labour Party into 2022....he looks knackered now....but if one of those hard faced, rough Mancs takes over...Bailey or Rayner..... I'd be looking back to to the halycon days of Corbyn with romanticism.....
Do you think John Ashworth the shadow health secretary could do the job ? I have bet on him as compromise candidate to unite the party .
No....Ashworth appears to have gone to the same voice trainer as Nuttall...too many contrived pauses when he answers questions...,.
I think Clive Lewis will get it after a horrible drawn out process that will keep us entertained through the summer and autumn ....
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.
That's my reading.
What makes you think Labour will have a sane Leader in 2022?
Mt.
But you miss the point of the question, Sean, and it's an entirely serious one.
If Corbyn scores 35% at the GE, what are the chances of him standing down, or being stood down? Pretty close to zero I would say.
Personally I think he might survive on a much weaker performance than that, but 35% would surely make him bombproof, no? So it's starting to look like he will lead Labour into the 2022 election, yes?
Everybody happy?
No, he's too old. He wouldn't fancy five years of tedious slavery as Opposition leader. PMQs every week?
He would surely retire in a blaze of glory - the man who put five points on Labour's 2015 score, even with a hard left manifesto - and he would hand over to an anointed leftwing successor. He would become a saintlike, iconic figure in the eyes of his supporters and acolytes, even more than he is now. A very pleasant prospect for a man of his age, I should think: from leftwing crank to hugely revered elder statesman.
OK, but you are not exactly cheering me up here, Sean.
Who is this left wing successor that I can look forward to? See Tyson's reply to me for a couple of chilling suggestions.
You know I'm a fair bit older than you. I have five years of Brexit to look forward to followed by five years of Corbyn's 'left wing successor'.
Paul Mason* writes Mail headline. Funny old world.
*coiner of dementia tax meme
However, despite opposition to the proposals, the public are not convinced that the moniker some have placed on the policy – the “Dementia Tax” – is fair; 37% think it is fair to call the policy the “Dementia Tax”, compared to 39% who think it’s unfair. ' http://survation.com/conservative-manifesto-poll/
Whether fair or not, it has cut through like a knife through Lurpak in a heatwave. Paul Mason coined the phrase. The Mail on Sunday splash on it.
Just like the 'bedroom tax' cut through for Miliband I suppose?
The "bedroom taz* did not cause fear in Tory hearts. I suppose it impacts on " losers". Dementia is different
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
Yes, it is the opposition of 61% of Labour voters and 64% of LDs which tips the balance on social care overall. On winter fuel allowance 65% of Tories back means testing it, 53% of Labour voters are opposed (p14) overall 49% back the change, 37% opposed
From The Sunday Times Another minister who is close to Downing Street complained that campaign headquarters is deploying its resources poorly. “They’re getting carried away with all this talk of a landslide, sending people to places we are never going to win,” he said. “We need to make sure we get the seats we can get.”
Sounds like a chap not in the loop or privy to Crosby’s er, master plan.
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
For those of you who may have missed it earlier this evening, here's a report of a focus group of voters in Bury South (Lab held, Con target no.50):
For some, the Labour party sounded like it was past its sell-by date. That it didn’t have anything new to say, only repeating tired old policies which either didn’t make sense or were unaffordable. The participants felt that Labour had the wrong ideas, the wrong priorities and the wrong leader.
Take free school meals as an example. The Conservatives have pledged to means-test school meals so that those which can afford school meals should pay. The participants agreed. They thought state support should go to the poorest of course, but those that can pay should. When the participants were told that Labour’s policy was to provide free school meals for all up to the age of eleven the response was scathing.
“That’s a waste of money”, one said.
“That’s a ridiculous idea”, said another.
They were equally scathing on the abolition of all tuition fees, another Labour policy. Instead, the participants again favoured a scale of support with the poorest receiving free tuition with those that could afford to do so paying for theirs. It didn’t feel like an extreme position to take. In truth, in the room it seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection to universal free tuition. More importantly, it fed into a deeper sense that Labour were profligate with the nation’s finances when they were last in government.
@Clown_Car_HQ.. if you edit your post and delete all the blockquote tags at the start (apart from the one with viewcode in it, your post should appear.
Sorry, very tired and trying to this on an iPad which keeps freezing. Hit post comment by accident.
@Clown_Car_HQ.. if you edit your post and delete all the blockquote tags at the start (apart from the one with viewcode in it, your post should appear.
Sorry, very tired and trying to this on an iPad which keeps freezing. Hit post comment by accident.
No problem, the quote system can be a bit of a pain if you have to delete some of them. Always keep an equal number of opening and closing tags, otherwise it gets funky like yours.
Others can still read it if they click on "show previous quotes" though
I will politely decline, but thanks for the offer. I think it's only slightly better than an even money shot that she stays, if that, so no value there. Handling T1D in one's sixties is a challenge.
The same files disclose that the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, personally led or took part in at least 72 separate events or actions with Sinn Fein and pro-republican groups during the years of the IRA’s armed struggle — far more than previously known.
For those of you who may have missed it earlier this evening, here's a report of a focus group of voters in Bury South (Lab held, Con target no.50):
For some, the Labour party sounded like it was past its sell-by date. That it didn’t have anything new to say, only repeating tired old policies which either didn’t make sense or were unaffordable. The participants felt that Labour had the wrong ideas, the wrong priorities and the wrong leader.
Take free school meals as an example. The Conservatives have pledged to means-test school meals so that those which can afford school meals should pay. The participants agreed. They thought state support should go to the poorest of course, but those that can pay should. When the participants were told that Labour’s policy was to provide free school meals for all up to the age of eleven the response was scathing.
“That’s a waste of money”, one said.
“That’s a ridiculous idea”, said another.
They were equally scathing on the abolition of all tuition fees, another Labour policy. Instead, the participants again favoured a scale of support with the poorest receiving free tuition with those that could afford to do so paying for theirs. It didn’t feel like an extreme position to take. In truth, in the room it seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection to universal free tuition. More importantly, it fed into a deeper sense that Labour were profligate with the nation’s finances when they were last in government.
If the Labour vote is surging, it's not doing so amongst people like these, it would seem.
Heh, having sat through a fair few focus groups I know to trust my gut rather than the group.
And my gut says that even though these people seem universally conservative _now_ their body language and hesitance say it wouldn't take many more blows to push them into abstention or even back to Labour.
The tribalism runs deep. One more unforced error that makes the Tories look like the 'nasty party' could easily see all of this lot abstain or return to Labour.
They are the most reluctant of reluctant Conservatives. They are looking for an excuse to return home to the fold.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Tories back WFA even more but looking at the Survation regional subsamples, the Tories are seeing a 7% swing to them in the Midlands and a huge 12% swing to them in Scotland and a swing to them in the North and Wales and even London too, however in the South there is a 1% swing to Labour from 2015, so most of Corbyn's gains are coming in the South where the Tory majorities are too big to win many seats
One of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest aides has told Labour candidates that they should not discuss the leader with voters, admitting that his unpopularity is a “sensitive subject”.
In a conference call conducted on Wednesday, a tape of which has been passed to this newspaper, Steve Howell — Corbyn’s deputy director of communications — was quizzed about how to deal with voters who “openly criticise” the leader and Diane Abbott, the gaffe-prone shadow home secretary.
A question submitted by Danny Hackett, Labour’s candidate in Old Bexley and Sidcup, gave warning that “lifelong Labour voters cannot support us with the leadership team we have”.
Howell responded by urging candidates to concentrate on Labour’s manifesto rather than entering into conversation about Corbyn.
He said: “This is obviously within the party a sensitive subject . . . I think the focus of the response to that should be on the manifesto and on the policies rather than individuals.”
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Two other possibilities.
Firstly, the 32% are predominantly the rich, they are disproportionately clustered in Tory safe seats, and most of them will grumble but then stick with the Conservatives anyway for fear of socialism. Those that rebel will more likely sit on their hands or go Liberal Democrat than vote Labour, and they won't be numerous enough to make much of a difference to anything.
Secondly, this is like all those "popular" policies from the Labour manifesto, but in reverse. A lot of Labour's policies got the thumbs up as stand alone propositions, but people still wouldn't vote Labour to get them because the party and the leadership weren't considered electable. In the same way, people may whinge about some Conservative policies, but then vote Conservative anyway because they like them overall, or they're regarded as the best of a bad bunch, or because a Labour Government is unthinkable.
And just another reminder: the average home in the Midlands is worth something like £175,000, and in the North and Wales it's less than that. This policy will preserve the bulk of the value of homes in less well-off areas, and for those who don't own their own homes the idea of the wealthy paying more towards their own subsistence is unlikely to prove off-putting.
For those of you who may have missed it earlier this evening, here's a report of a focus group of voters in Bury South (Lab held, Con target no.50):
For some, the Labour party sounded like it was past its sell-by date. That it didn’t have anything new to say, only repeating tired old policies which either didn’t make sense or were unaffordable. The participants felt that Labour had the wrong ideas, the wrong priorities and the wrong leader.
Take free school meals as an example. The Conservatives have pledged to means-test school meals so that those which can afford school meals should pay. The participants agreed. They thought state support should go to the poorest of course, but those that can pay should. When the participants were told that Labour’s policy was to provide free school meals for all up to the age of eleven the response was scathing.
“That’s a waste of money”, one said.
“That’s a ridiculous idea”, said another.
They were equally scathing on the abolition of all tuition fees, another Labour policy. Instead, the participants again favoured a scale of support with the poorest receiving free tuition with those that could afford to do so paying for theirs. It didn’t feel like an extreme position to take. In truth, in the room it seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection to universal free tuition. More importantly, it fed into a deeper sense that Labour were profligate with the nation’s finances when they were last in government.
If the Labour vote is surging, it's not doing so amongst people like these, it would seem.
Heh, having sat through a fair few focus groups I know to trust my gut rather than the group.
And my gut says that even though these people seem universally conservative _now_ their body language and hesitance say it wouldn't take many more blows to push them into abstention or even back to Labour.
The tribalism runs deep. One more unforced error that makes the Tories look like the 'nasty party' could easily see all of this lot abstain or return to Labour.
They are the most reluctant of reluctant Conservatives. They are looking for an excuse to return home to the fold.
And Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Diane Abbott will not give them that excuse.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
Nonetheless even those figures have the Tories ahead in the North West and Yorkshire and with a massive lead in the Midlands and only 2% behind in the North East and 3% behind in London while Labour is up on the 19% or so it got in the South in 2015
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Tories back WFA even more but looking at the Survation regional subsamples, the Tories are seeing a 7% swing to them in the Midlands and a huge 12% swing to them in Scotland and a swing to them in the North and Wales and even London too, however in the South there is a 1% swing to Labour from 2015, so most of Corbyn's gains are coming in the South where the Tory majorities are too big to win many seats
And is that even a direct swing from Con, or were the Tories simply close to getting maxed out in a lot of these seats in the first place, whereas opposition to them is continuing to coalesce around Labour? Total third party defections to Lab slightly greater than those to Con in very safe Tory seats where it makes no difference anyway, perhaps...?
But anyway, need to put this down and stop obsessing over what are ultimately meaningless figures. Bedtime calls. Goodnight.
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Two other possibilities.
Firstly, the 32% are predominantly the rich, they are disproportionately clustered in Tory safe seats, and most of them will grumble but then stick with the Conservatives anyway for fear of socialism. Those that rebel will more likely sit on their hands or go Liberal Democrat than vote Labour, and they won't be numerous enough to make much of a difference to anything.
Secondly, this is like all those "popular" policies from the Labour manifesto, but in reverse. A lot of Labour's policies got the thumbs up as stand alone propositions, but people still wouldn't vote Labour to get them because the party and the leadership weren't considered electable. In the same way, people may whinge about some Conservative policies, but then vote Conservative anyway because they like them overall, or they're regarded as the best of a bad bunch, or because a Labour Government is unthinkable.
And just another reminder: the average home in the Midlands is worth something like £175,000, and in the North and Wales it's less than that. This policy will preserve the bulk of the value of homes in less well-off areas, and for those who don't own their own homes the idea of the wealthy paying more towards their own subsistence is unlikely to prove off-putting.
Agreed, 100%. We just don't know yet who hates this policy the most. What we can agree on is that most people dislike it. If that dislike is centred mostly around wealthy voters in Tory safe seats then this wobble is a non-issue. In which case the bets we made this time last week are more or less safe.
But if this policy has the double effect of a) worrying lower middle class voters in marginal seats whose primary asset is their 250-350kish house, as I've argued tonight and b) retoxifying the Tories with the wider electorate ("house snatcher!") while also creating a narrative of upward momentum for Corbyn, then the Tories are in trouble.
I start to think a 50 seat majority is much more likely than 150 seat one, though I'm green on everything from 25 seats to 175.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Labour were 21.57% ahead there in 2015. Now 2%. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals. In the North East Labour are 12% down from the 47% they got in 2015, in the South East 5% up from the 18% they got at the last general election
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Labour were 21.57% ahead in the north-east at GE2015. Now down to 2%, possibly.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Aren't these figures BEFORE the Tory shot in the foot of Dementia Tax?
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
For those of you who may have missed it earlier this evening, here's a report of a focus group of voters in Bury South (Lab held, Con target no.50):
For some, the Labour party sounded like it was past its sell-by date. That it didn’t have anything new to say, only repeating tired old policies which either didn’t make sense or were unaffordable. The participants felt that Labour had the wrong ideas, the wrong priorities and the wrong leader.
Take free school meals as an example. The Conservatives have pledged to means-test school meals so that those which can afford school meals should pay. The participants agreed. They thought state support should go to the poorest of course, but those that can pay should. When the participants were told that Labour’s policy was to provide free school meals for all up to the age of eleven the response was scathing.
“That’s a waste of money”, one said.
“That’s a ridiculous idea”, said another.
They were equally scathing on the abolition of all tuition fees, another Labour policy. Instead, the participants again favoured a scale of support with the poorest receiving free tuition with those that could afford to do so paying for theirs. It didn’t feel like an extreme position to take. In truth, in the room it seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection to universal free tuition. More importantly, it fed into a deeper sense that Labour were profligate with the nation’s finances when they were last in government.
If the Labour vote is surging, it's not doing so amongst people like these, it would seem.
Heh, having sat through a fair few focus groups I know to trust my gut rather than the group.
And my gut says that even though these people seem universally conservative _now_ their body language and hesitance say it wouldn't take many more blows to push them into abstention or even back to Labour.
The tribalism runs deep. One more unforced error that makes the Tories look like the 'nasty party' could easily see all of this lot abstain or return to Labour.
They are the most reluctant of reluctant Conservatives. They are looking for an excuse to return home to the fold.
And Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell and Diane Abbott will not give them that excuse.
They are lost to Labour.
Then they abstain.
"Oh, I couldn't vote for that funny beardy southerner, but I could *never* bring myself to vote Tory. I mean, we all knew they were going to win anyway, so I just decided not to bother this time round. After all, I already voted last year and the year before!"
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Tories back WFA even more but looking at the Survation regional subsamples, the Tories are seeing a 7% swing to them in the Midlands and a huge 12% swing to them in Scotland and a swing to them in the North and Wales and even London too, however in the South there is a 1% swing to Labour from 2015, so most of Corbyn's gains are coming in the South where the Tory majorities are too big to win many seats
And is that even a direct swing from Con, or were the Tories simply close to getting maxed out in a lot of these seats in the first place, whereas opposition to them is continuing to coalesce around Labour? Total third party defections to Lab slightly greater than those to Con in very safe Tory seats where it makes no difference anyway, perhaps...?
But anyway, need to put this down and stop obsessing over what are ultimately meaningless figures. Bedtime calls. Goodnight.
The LDs down so clearly some LD movement to Labour there too
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Aren't these figures BEFORE the Tory shot in the foot of Dementia Tax?
Not the Survation figures tonight no those results are all post manifesto and they show exactly the same trend, Labour up in the South but a big swing to the Tories elsewhere
This is not a good thing. If the 32% who don't back it are - as I've tried to argue this evening - lower middle class small c conservative types - and they either abstain or in constituencies where the Tories are traditionally toxic, return to Labour - this could swing a fair few seats.
Two other possibilities.
Firstly, the 32% are predominantly the rich, they are disproportionately clustered in Tory safe seats, and most of them will grumble but then stick with the Conservatives anyway for fear of socialism. Those that rebel will more likely sit on their hands or go Liberal Democrat than vote Labour, and they won't be numerous enough to make much of a difference to anything.
Secondly, this is like all those "popular" policies from the Labour manifesto, but in reverse. A lot of Labour's policies got the thumbs up as stand alone propositions, but people still wouldn't vote Labour to get them because the party and the leadership weren't considered electable. In the same way, people may whinge about some Conservative policies, but then vote Conservative anyway because they like them overall, or they're regarded as the best of a bad bunch, or because a Labour Government is unthinkable.
snip
Agreed, 100%. We just don't know yet who hates this policy the most. What we can agree on is that most people dislike it. If that dislike is centred mostly around wealthy voters in Tory safe seats then this wobble is a non-issue. In which case the bets we made this time last week are more or less safe.
But if this policy has the double effect of a) worrying lower middle class voters in marginal seats whose primary asset is their 250-350kish house, as I've argued tonight and b) retoxifying the Tories with the wider electorate ("house snatcher!") while also creating a narrative of upward momentum for Corbyn, then the Tories are in trouble.
I start to think a 50 seat majority is much more likely than 150 seat one, though I'm green on everything from 25 seats to 175.
Nobody on here seems to be mentioning what I think is a major cut-through - the unfairness. That's why it is called the Dementia Tax. If you are one of the 5in 6 who don't get dementia, Parkinson's, motoneuron disease or whatever - then bingo - your kids win maybe £1m.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Labour were 21.57% ahead in the north-east at GE2015. Now down to 2%, possibly.
Yes, the North East will see a massive Labour to Tory swing it seems but astonishingly it looks like the South East will see a swing from Tory to Labour making UNS almost redundant!
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
Nobody on here seems to be mentioning what I think is a major cut-through - the unfairness. That's why it is called the Dementia Tax. If you are one of the 5in 6 who don’t get dementia, Parkinson’s, motoneuron disease or whatever - then bingo - your kids win maybe £1m.
Rottenborough, you don’t understand how the system works at the moment.
My mother died after 5 years of Parkinsons’ dementia.
There is no cap at all on how much you will pay at the moment, until you are down to your last 23k.
We paid her full fees at a residential care home.
May’s proposals are an improvement on what happens now. Both myself and Clown_Car_HQ (who also has direct experience of this) have been trying to get this point across.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
Good night.
At least there is a cap.
There is no cap at the moment. It was due to be introduced.
Read the link at Saga, and you will see the 72 k cap is no such thing.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
I hope you and your family are never put in this position. I wouldn't wish dementia (and there are many forms of it) on anyone. Trying to arrange care and organise finances when you are witnessing the mental and physical deterioration of a loved one adds to the distress. The whole process could be made much more family-friendly. I was in the process of writing to my MP about this (amongst other issues, including my experience of the inquest process) when the election was called. She is likely to get re-elected so I will write to her then. Social and nursing care for the elderly and how it is funded is an issue I feel very strongly about.
Agreed, 100%. We just don't know yet who hates this policy the most. What we can agree on is that most people dislike it. If that dislike is centred mostly around wealthy voters in Tory safe seats then this wobble is a non-issue. In which case the bets we made this time last week are more or less safe.
But if this policy has the double effect of a) worrying lower middle class voters in marginal seats whose primary asset is their 250-350kish house, as I've argued tonight and b) retoxifying the Tories with the wider electorate ("house snatcher!") while also creating a narrative of upward momentum for Corbyn, then the Tories are in trouble.
I start to think a 50 seat majority is much more likely than 150 seat one, though I'm green on everything from 25 seats to 175.
Nobody on here seems to be mentioning what I think is a major cut-through - the unfairness. That's why it is called the Dementia Tax. If you are one of the 5in 6 who don't get dementia, Parkinson's, motoneuron disease or whatever - then bingo - your kids win maybe £1m.
Heh, I've been banging on about it all night - I called it a reverse lottery in the previous thread. And I've seen a couple of other posters say the same thing.
This strikes against the heart of what most Conservatives value, which is the home. Having a one in five chance of having then thing you've worked hard all your life to pay for and hope to pass on to your children affects all of us, even if it only *potentially* affects 1 in 5 of us.
That's why it's so utterly toxic in a way, say, the bedroom tax never was. The bedroom "tax" you knew affected you because you could look over your shoulder and see you lived in a council house with a spare bedroom. A small number of people and an even smaller number of Conservative voters. The dementia tax potentially affects all of us. And it really feels like a kick in the balls on top of a dementia diagnosis, which is scary and horrible enough as it is.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
Nonetheless even those figures have the Tories ahead in the North West and Yorkshire and with a massive lead in the Midlands and only 2% behind in the North East and 3% behind in London while Labour is up on the 19% or so it got in the South in 2015
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Labour were 21.57% ahead in the north-east at GE2015. Now down to 2%, possibly.
Yes, the North East will see a massive Labour to Tory swing it seems but astonishingly it looks like the South East will see a swing from Tory to Labour making UNS almost redundant!
The swing in the SE though is because the LibDems have crashed and burned... Still good news for the Tories in SW London!
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Labour were 21.57% ahead in the north-east at GE2015. Now down to 2%, possibly.
Yes, the North East will see a massive Labour to Tory swing it seems but astonishingly it looks like the South East will see a swing from Tory to Labour making UNS almost redundant!
The swing in the SE though is because the LibDems have crashed and burned... Still good news for the Tories in SW London!
This evening’s 4 polls, Lib Dems on 7, 8, 8 and 9%, basically exactly where they were a year or so ago. One could say their pro EU and Referendum Mrk2 stance, has been a bit of a flop.
"Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink. Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall. These are the findings of new analysis by Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing."
Agreed, 100%. We just don't know yet who hates this policy the most. What we can agree on is that most people dislike it. If that dislike is centred mostly around wealthy voters in Tory safe seats then this wobble is a non-issue. In which case the bets we made this time last week are more or less safe.
But if this policy has the double effect of a) worrying lower middle class voters in marginal seats whose primary asset is their 250-350kish house, as I've argued tonight and b) retoxifying the Tories with the wider electorate ("house snatcher!") while also creating a narrative of upward momentum for Corbyn, then the Tories are in trouble.
I start to think a 50 seat majority is much more likely than 150 seat one, though I'm green on everything from 25 seats to 175.
Nobody on here seems to be mentioning what I think is a major cut-through - the unfairness. That's why it is called the Dementia Tax. If you are one of the 5in 6 who don't get dementia, Parkinson's, motoneuron disease or whatever - then bingo - your kids win maybe £1m.
Heh, I've been banging on about it all night - I called it a reverse lottery in the previous thread. And I've seen a couple of other posters say the same thing.
This strikes against the heart of what most Conservatives value, which is the home. Having a one in five chance of having then thing you've worked hard all your life to pay for and hope to pass on to your children affects all of us, even if it only *potentially* affects 1 in 5 of us.
That's why it's so utterly toxic in a way, say, the bedroom tax never was. The bedroom "tax" you knew affected you because you could look over your shoulder and see you lived in a council house with a spare bedroom. A small number of people and an even smaller number of Conservative voters. The dementia tax potentially affects all of us. And it really feels like a kick in the balls on top of a dementia diagnosis, which is scary and horrible enough as it is.
My mistake, I've not been keeping up with this evening's comments - I was referring to debate earlier in the day. But anyway we are on the same page. It is grossly unfair. If you get cancer and need ridiculously expensive drugs the NHS will pay (or for most of them - but that's another debate), but if you get dementia: tough tits.
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
Nonetheless even those figures have the Tories ahead in the North West and Yorkshire and with a massive lead in the Midlands and only 2% behind in the North East and 3% behind in London while Labour is up on the 19% or so it got in the South in 2015
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
Nonetheless even those figures have the Tories ahead in the North West and Yorkshire and with a massive lead in the Midlands and only 2% behind in the North East and 3% behind in London while Labour is up on the 19% or so it got in the South in 2015
Where is Labour up 19% ?
Sorry, Labour is up on the 18% it got in the South East and South West and the 22% it got in the East in 2015, in the North East, the North West and Yorkshire by contrast it is significantly down
"Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink. Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall. These are the findings of new analysis by Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing."
"Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink. Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall. These are the findings of new analysis by Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing."
Scotland 23 22 47 North East 33 35 North West 46 42 Y&H 41 40 West Mids 51 34 East Mids 47 37 Wales 37 43 Eastern 52 27 London 39 42 South East 57 23 South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
The north-east could be a disaster for Labour if these figures are anything like accurate. Blyth Valley and Sedgefield could be in play.
Yes, it looks like the Corbyn 'surge' is all coming in the South East and South West where most own their own homes, unlike London and where house prices are well above the national average, in the North and Midlands the Tories are seeing a much bigger swing and it is those areas which are full of marginals
Labour were 21.57% ahead in the north-east at GE2015. Now down to 2%, possibly.
Yes, the North East will see a massive Labour to Tory swing it seems but astonishingly it looks like the South East will see a swing from Tory to Labour making UNS almost redundant!
The swing in the SE though is because the LibDems have crashed and burned... Still good news for the Tories in SW London!
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
Good night.
At least there is a cap.
There is no cap at all at the moment, nor was one likely to be introduced. As this row shows, no painless solutions are on offer. But some kind of urgent action is need, as the endless funding crisis in social care demonstrates.
Nobody on here seems to be mentioning what I think is a major cut-through - the unfairness. That's why it is called the Dementia Tax. If you are one of the 5in 6 who don’t get dementia, Parkinson’s, motoneuron disease or whatever - then bingo - your kids win maybe £1m.
Rottenborough, you don’t understand how the system works at the moment.
My mother died after 5 years of Parkinsons’ dementia.
There is no cap at all on how much you will pay at the moment, until you are down to your last 23k.
We paid her full fees at a residential care home.
May’s proposals are an improvement on what happens now. Both myself and Clown_Car_HQ (who also has direct experience of this) have been trying to get this point across.
My condolences to you. I am sorry you had this horrible experience. It is a vile and cruel disease.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
I hope you and your family are never put in this position. I wouldn't wish dementia (and there are many forms of it) on anyone. Trying to arrange care and organise finances when you are witnessing the mental and physical deterioration of a loved one adds to the distress. The whole process could be made much more family-friendly. I was in the process of writing to my MP about this (amongst other issues, including my experience of the inquest process) when the election was called. She is likely to get re-elected so I will write to her then. Social and nursing care for the elderly and how it is funded is an issue I feel very strongly about.
I dont know if it would have helped your families situation or not but Scotland seem to be able to fund five visits a day for free, with people making some contributions if they can afford it England should be able to. I'm not against people make some conribution bit guess what will happen when there is no cap? The price will suddenly rise.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
I hope you and your family are never put in this position. I wouldn't wish dementia (and there are many forms of it) on anyone. Trying to arrange care and organise finances when you are witnessing the mental and physical deterioration of a loved one adds to the distress. The whole process could be made much more family-friendly. I was in the process of writing to my MP about this (amongst other issues, including my experience of the inquest process) when the election was called. She is likely to get re-elected so I will write to her then. Social and nursing care for the elderly and how it is funded is an issue I feel very strongly about.
I feel for you. Is Clown Car HQ a reference, by chance, to a certain well-known Labour leader and his entourage or just coincidence ?
Comments
That could push it down another few seats.
That, I think, is exactly the point. (And if it's a wealth tax, it's one which doesn't really affect the truly wealthy.)
The precise details aren't, I think, all that relevant (and many voters don't in any event believe that governments will stick to policy details).
I'm not sure anyone who hasn't actually cared for a parent with dementia quite understands the emotions involved, either. The reaction to the policy might not be entirely logical, but that doesn't make it any less visceral.
Corbyn will not lead the Labour Party into 2022....he looks knackered now....but if one of those hard faced, rough Mancs takes over...Bailey or Rayner..... I'd be looking back to to the halycon days of Corbyn with romanticism.....
For a start, presumably, Gideon will be slaying it from the Evening Standard as he was CoE when a lifetime cap was introduced (albeit with a delay).
Support 35
Oppose 40
Don't Know 25
That is not enough to move polls to any discernible degree.
I know quite a few people called Nick Timothy 'Rasputin' because he looks like Rasputin, but perhaps he should remember what happened to Rasputin.
Will Boney M do a song about Nick Timothy?
@Clown_Car_HQ.. if you edit your post and delete all the blockquote tags at the start (apart from the one with viewcode in it, your post should appear.
Jeez.....
I don't care about tuition fees any more.
Give me PM Nick Clegg with the support of half of the tory/labour MPs - committed to a nice, soft, fluffy, purely theoretical, just-enough-to-respect-the-will-of-the-people brexit - and then life can return to normal.
But that lottery already exists for people in care homes, (apart from the last £23k). Why's it okay for them?
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-MoS-Poll-190517GOCH-1c0d1h7.pdf
Even 80 would still be a very good win - although expectations have, of course, been raised so high now that some might treat it as a damp squib regardless.
https://www.saga.co.uk/money/care-funding-advice/what-you-need-to-know-about-care-home-fees
Another minister who is close to Downing Street complained that campaign headquarters is deploying its resources poorly.
“They’re getting carried away with all this talk of a landslide, sending people to places we are never going to win,” he said.
“We need to make sure we get the seats we can get.”
No....Ashworth appears to have gone to the same voice trainer as Nuttall...too many contrived pauses when he answers questions...,.
I think Clive Lewis will get it after a horrible drawn out process that will keep us entertained through the summer and autumn ....
Who is this left wing successor that I can look forward to? See Tyson's reply to me for a couple of chilling suggestions.
You know I'm a fair bit older than you. I have five years of Brexit to look forward to followed by five years of Corbyn's 'left wing successor'.
At which point do you suggest I slit my wrists?
http://survation.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Final-MoS-Poll-190517GOCH-1c0d1h7.pdf (p26)
Region Con : Lab
Scotland 23 22 47
North East 33 35
North West 46 42
Y&H 41 40
West Mids 51 34
East Mids 47 37
Wales 37 43
Eastern 52 27
London 39 42
South East 57 23
South West 54 25
At least, these are more believable.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/866067822639808512
The one Corbyn anoints is likely to win mind....
For some, the Labour party sounded like it was past its sell-by date. That it didn’t have anything new to say, only repeating tired old policies which either didn’t make sense or were unaffordable. The participants felt that Labour had the wrong ideas, the wrong priorities and the wrong leader.
Take free school meals as an example. The Conservatives have pledged to means-test school meals so that those which can afford school meals should pay. The participants agreed. They thought state support should go to the poorest of course, but those that can pay should. When the participants were told that Labour’s policy was to provide free school meals for all up to the age of eleven the response was scathing.
“That’s a waste of money”, one said.
“That’s a ridiculous idea”, said another.
They were equally scathing on the abolition of all tuition fees, another Labour policy. Instead, the participants again favoured a scale of support with the poorest receiving free tuition with those that could afford to do so paying for theirs. It didn’t feel like an extreme position to take. In truth, in the room it seemed to be a perfectly reasonable objection to universal free tuition. More importantly, it fed into a deeper sense that Labour were profligate with the nation’s finances when they were last in government.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ian-warren/labour-party-general-election_b_16704256.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&
If the Labour vote is surging, it's not doing so amongst people like these, it would seem.
Hit post comment by accident.
Others can still read it if they click on "show previous quotes" though
I will politely decline, but thanks for the offer. I think it's only slightly better than an even money shot that she stays, if that, so no value there. Handling T1D in one's sixties is a challenge.
The same files disclose that the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, personally led or took part in at least 72 separate events or actions with Sinn Fein and pro-republican groups during the years of the IRA’s armed struggle — far more than previously known.
And my gut says that even though these people seem universally conservative _now_ their body language and hesitance say it wouldn't take many more blows to push them into abstention or even back to Labour.
The tribalism runs deep. One more unforced error that makes the Tories look like the 'nasty party' could easily see all of this lot abstain or return to Labour.
They are the most reluctant of reluctant Conservatives. They are looking for an excuse to return home to the fold.
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.
Nunu,
The £72k cap is deceptive. It does not mean that you only pay up to £72k and then no more. I learned all this when I was researching care home funding for my father. I'm too tired to explain it now but if you have a look at Saga's website they have a very good guide to funding and what the £72k cap actually means.
As someone who been through all this my view is that the Tory manifesto proposal is a considerably better than the current situation. I'm sure Labour would love to spend £3bn or whatever on care funding but I doubt they have any idea where it would come from.
Good night.
In a conference call conducted on Wednesday, a tape of which has been passed to this newspaper, Steve Howell — Corbyn’s deputy director of communications — was quizzed about how to deal with voters who “openly criticise” the leader and Diane Abbott, the gaffe-prone shadow home secretary.
A question submitted by Danny Hackett, Labour’s candidate in Old Bexley and Sidcup, gave warning that “lifelong Labour voters cannot support us with the leadership team we have”.
Howell responded by urging candidates to concentrate on Labour’s manifesto rather than entering into conversation about Corbyn.
He said: “This is obviously within the party a sensitive subject . . . I think the focus of the response to that should be on the manifesto and on the policies rather than individuals.”
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dont-mention-jeremy-corbyn-aide-tells-labour-candidates-general-election-tjpx6jrq0
Firstly, the 32% are predominantly the rich, they are disproportionately clustered in Tory safe seats, and most of them will grumble but then stick with the Conservatives anyway for fear of socialism. Those that rebel will more likely sit on their hands or go Liberal Democrat than vote Labour, and they won't be numerous enough to make much of a difference to anything.
Secondly, this is like all those "popular" policies from the Labour manifesto, but in reverse. A lot of Labour's policies got the thumbs up as stand alone propositions, but people still wouldn't vote Labour to get them because the party and the leadership weren't considered electable. In the same way, people may whinge about some Conservative policies, but then vote Conservative anyway because they like them overall, or they're regarded as the best of a bad bunch, or because a Labour Government is unthinkable.
And just another reminder: the average home in the Midlands is worth something like £175,000, and in the North and Wales it's less than that. This policy will preserve the bulk of the value of homes in less well-off areas, and for those who don't own their own homes the idea of the wealthy paying more towards their own subsistence is unlikely to prove off-putting.
They are lost to Labour.
But anyway, need to put this down and stop obsessing over what are ultimately meaningless figures. Bedtime calls. Goodnight.
But if this policy has the double effect of a) worrying lower middle class voters in marginal seats whose primary asset is their 250-350kish house, as I've argued tonight and b) retoxifying the Tories with the wider electorate ("house snatcher!") while also creating a narrative of upward momentum for Corbyn, then the Tories are in trouble.
I start to think a 50 seat majority is much more likely than 150 seat one, though I'm green on everything from 25 seats to 175.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/
Shire tories - like the blue liberals & thatcherites have found themselves at the fringes of the conservative coalition.
They're not happy, but there's not a lot they can do about it.
As seasoned observers of those two might expect, it doesn’t mean anything like a 72k cap.
Like you, I have been through this, and am of the view that the Tory proposal is better than what exists at the moment.
Thank you for posting the link.
"Oh, I couldn't vote for that funny beardy southerner, but I could *never* bring myself to vote Tory. I mean, we all knew they were going to win anyway, so I just decided not to bother this time round. After all, I already voted last year and the year before!"
This sounds very, very plausible to me.
Read the link at Saga, and you will see the 72 k cap is no such thing.
I hope you and your family are never put in this position. I wouldn't wish dementia (and there are many forms of it) on anyone. Trying to arrange care and organise finances when you are witnessing the mental and physical deterioration of a loved one adds to the distress. The whole process could be made much more family-friendly. I was in the process of writing to my MP about this (amongst other issues, including my experience of the inquest process) when the election was called. She is likely to get re-elected so I will write to her then. Social and nursing care for the elderly and how it is funded is an issue I feel very strongly about.
This strikes against the heart of what most Conservatives value, which is the home. Having a one in five chance of having then thing you've worked hard all your life to pay for and hope to pass on to your children affects all of us, even if it only *potentially* affects 1 in 5 of us.
That's why it's so utterly toxic in a way, say, the bedroom tax never was. The bedroom "tax" you knew affected you because you could look over your shoulder and see you lived in a council house with a spare bedroom. A small number of people and an even smaller number of Conservative voters. The dementia tax potentially affects all of us. And it really feels like a kick in the balls on top of a dementia diagnosis, which is scary and horrible enough as it is.
"Labour is facing a parliamentary wipeout on June 8th. The defeat will be greater than 1983 with the leading figures such as Tom Watson, Dennis Skinner and Caroline Flint facing defeat while many others, including Yvette Cooper, Ed Miliband and Angela Rayner, are teetering on the brink.
Currently Labour is set to lose just over 90 seats but a relatively small deterioration of the party’s position on the ground could see dozens more fall.
These are the findings of new analysis by Uncut based on the views of dozens of Labour candidates, party officials and activists following the past three weeks of intensive canvassing."
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2017/05/20/new-poll-analysis-watson-skinner-and-flint-facing-defeat-cooper-miliband-reeves-and-rayner-on-the-edge/
I know because I lived through it with my mother.