In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?
It highlights the dearth of talent in Tories and Labour in Scotland, both so bereft they have to help each other manage their drubbings.
The politicians I can understand - from any deal there is the upside of power, influence and income, and there will be personal loyalties and antagonisms at play as well, for sure. It's the voters I was questioning. LD/Lab and LD/Tory tactical voting, in both directions, seems to me quite possible, but Labour voters switching to Tory and vice versa can only be a few people whose opposition to an IndyRef swamps concerns about any other issue, surely?
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?
We tried that theory in the '70s and '80s, the problem is that when politicians have the choice of building a new water main or funding the NHS and Education they'll always choose the latter. Which is why we used to wait three months for a phone line to be installed and the water board used to lose half the stuff on its way from the reservoir and your house.
Oh, and it's an heroic assumption that government borrowing rates will stay as they are under Corbyn and McMao.
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Labour desperate to be seen as red Tories, you could not make it up.
Err, isn't it that Lab Donor is disappointed that SLAB are not red Tories?
Err, isn't it "he" is desperate for them to be Tories as I said previously.
Not in the bit I quoted. see below.
Is there any sign of the Unionist vote moving away from the Tories? particularly in the cities. All the PB Scots are either SNP or SCon, so we are rather short of SLab or SLD views.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Surely the alarm bells must be ringing that if (and it's still a very big if) Labour can poll around 33% under Corbyn why will they do with the same policies under a personable younger leader?
We are at peak May at the moment and there must be a possibility that the WC Brexiters might strike out to the left next time if Brexit is failing to deliver for them.
I was really expecting the Lib Dems to be snapping at Labour's heals by now but it's not happening. I think, like many writing Labour's obituary, I failed to account for the fact that the Labour brand is still preferred to the Conservative brand. This time they are pulling in votes by masquerading as the Theresa May Party, how long it will work is another matter.
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?
" Of the 15% who intend to be tactical with their vote, 46% said they were trying to stop the SNP and 39% said they were trying to lock the Tories out. "
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.
Dead right. As an act of "political selling" it was the brainless, to drag up something so utterly obscure and messy ( however noble the intention).
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
The correct comparison isn't to some sort of Utopian 'National Care Service', funded by a magic money tree - it's to the situation as it currently is, where people (and their children) are already being forced to sell their homes during their lifetime to pay for care.
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment. Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
The correct comparison isn't to some sort of Utopian 'National Care Service', funded by a magic money tree - it's to the situation as it currently is, where people (and their children) are already being forced to sell their homes during their lifetime to pay for care.
Quite so. But why less than three weeks before an election? Timing is everything. You don't cremate granny just before your five year old's birthday party do you?
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
Where they generate an annual return greater than your average debt servicing costs?
We tried that theory in the '70s and '80s, the problem is that when politicians have the choice of building a new water main or funding the NHS and Education they'll always choose the latter. Which is why we used to wait three months for a phone line to be installed and the water board used to lose half the stuff on its way from the reservoir and your house.
Yeah, I wasn't arguing that nationalised industries are necessarily better run. Although there are pros and cons - it's not a one way argument - and some of the upsides for railways are potentially attractive.
My point was simply that as an investment it might make sense. They always have the option of doing what Blair tried with Royal Mail - own the shares but otherwise let the industry pretty much run itself, just as it would with any other shareholder.
Sometimes government is very short sighted. I remember when Pickles was telling local councils to sell all their property as part of the austerity costs; my council looked at its portfolio and most of the commercial side was making a much better return than we could get from any other source. A council holds a batch of shops and offices and renting them out at commercial rates, using the income to support public services, would be mad to sell up, a fact that Pickles despite being a Tory seemed to struggle with.
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.
The cap that wasn't accounting for the hotel aspect of care costs and so would take years of paying bills to ever actually reach?
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?
Labour desperate to be seen as red Tories, you could not make it up.
Err, isn't it that Lab Donor is disappointed that SLAB are not red Tories?
Err, isn't it "he" is desperate for them to be Tories as I said previously.
Not in the bit I quoted. see below.
Is there any sign of the Unionist vote moving away from the Tories? particularly in the cities. All the PB Scots are either SNP or SCon, so we are rather short of SLab or SLD views.
" Of the 15% who intend to be tactical with their vote, 46% said they were trying to stop the SNP and 39% said they were trying to lock the Tories out. "
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
Good post, and reasonable points, except that the care policy isn't really progressive, as it simply won't affect the truly wealthy (like your £5m pad owner), and lotteries aren't progressive.
Mr. Owl, just so. The timing is horrendous given there's not been a solid defence *and* the Conservatives failed to hit Labour's tax-and-spend fantasy manifesto *and* they haven't hit Corbyn-McDonnell over their dodgy IRA comments.
Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?
There won't be a Tory lead of 9-18 points though once this cold sick policy is further digested over the next fortnight.
If the lead reduces to 5 points then May loses her majority, will be untenable as Tory leader and Corbyn will be PM in my view.
Unfortunately only Sky Bet are offering a market on the Indianapolis 500, but the betting does look a bit skewed towards names people know. Alonso is joint favourite at 8-1 and Juan Pablo Montoya is 10-1 which look far too short.
The race is a bit like the Grand National in that you have to survive in tact to the last 20 laps or so and then be in position to have a go, so there's a lot of luck in terms of not being taken out and hoping the cautions play to your advantage.
I've had a few quid on JR Hildebrand at 28-1. He made the Top 9 shootout for pole tonight and he's come close before (he crashed on the final corner in 2011 while leading).
Sometimes government is very short sighted. I remember when Pickles was telling local councils to sell all their property as part of the austerity costs; my council looked at its portfolio and most of the commercial side was making a much better return than we could get from any other source. A council holds a batch of shops and offices and renting them out at commercial rates, using the income to support public services, would be mad to sell up, a fact that Pickles despite being a Tory seemed to struggle with.
That's ideology not careful analysis of costs and cash flow by Pickles. Selling off capital items to generate current account spending is the only thing some Tories know.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .
Not surprising given your previous comments on Tories!
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
Indeed. They may get away with it as it has happened two weeks or so from polling day. Other stuff will have come up by then.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.
I realised after our discussion last night that Cameron (who had promised there would be a cap) knew he was going when he promised it.
The social care cap was due to be introduced in 2020.
Cameron already announced in 2015 that he wouldn’t serve a full term.
So, it was always just posturing. It is easy to solve problems by pushing the problem onto your successor, which is all the social care cap ever was.
Now, whoever is elected in 2017 will have to solve the problem, and I’m afraid that there are no simple answers.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment. Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment. Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.
If Labour did get in then the shares in those companies would spiral over night, and the Government would have to pay the value. In fact it would be better than betting, a surefire return if you can get in early enough.
Some Labour activists are concerned that the suspensions in Aberdeen will have repercussions in next month’s general election. Labour’s last surviving Scottish MP in the 2015 SNP landslide was the member for Edinburgh South, Ian Murray. Even he would concede that among those who returned him to Westminster two years ago were a number of those who might traditionally have voted Tory. Will those same voters feel so happy supporting a Labour candidate now they know that party views them with such contempt?
It amazes me that any sort of Labour-Tory or Tory-Labour tactical voting in the middle of a hard fought GE is particularly likely in the first place. But I am not Scottish so what do I know?
It highlights the dearth of talent in Tories and Labour in Scotland, both so bereft they have to help each other manage their drubbings.
The politicians I can understand - from any deal there is the upside of power, influence and income, and there will be personal loyalties and antagonisms at play as well, for sure. It's the voters I was questioning. LD/Lab and LD/Tory tactical voting, in both directions, seems to me quite possible, but Labour voters switching to Tory and vice versa can only be a few people whose opposition to an IndyRef swamps concerns about any other issue, surely?
Agree , it makes you wonder what planet they live on, how any labour voter would vote Tory seems bizarre.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.
This is what is going to happen.
He couldn't exactly have said yes, could he? The questions would then be 'what is it going to be different', 'why didn't you do that originally' etc. That doesn't mean it is set in stone, especially as it goes through parliament.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
You are one of the (unintentionally) funniest posters on PB. Keep up the good work.
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment. Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
Wouldn't it have been better politics for Labour to "invest" £250 billion on a National Care Service. instead of paying billions to city investors buying back privatised companies.
If Labour did get in then the shares in those companies would spiral over night, and the Government would have to pay the value. In fact it would be better than betting, a surefire return if you can get in early enough.
Isn't one of their possible plans to force all shareholders to become bond holders instead, thereby avoiding this kind of pay day?
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.
Nah, I still think Leadsom would have been pretty bad.
This saga is a larger statement on the lack of political talent among both parties in this country.
For that reason the foreseeable future does not look bright.
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA cuts will kick in. Nail on head - is it pensioners on 30k, 20k, 10k? So McDonnell can't miss can he as 12m are now in doubt and he can say he's protecting poor old ladies on 6k from freezing to death rather than having to defend (say) handing out cash to folk on 30k who spend it on a winter break in Marbella.
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.
I see that last night's discussion continues. This link tabulates the proportion of house value needed to fund residential care in different parts of the county.
The Foreign secretary tells the Peston on Sunday programme: “I do understand people’s reservations and the questions people are asking about the detail.
So no backing down from the government Re. social care and stealing the WFA from old age pensioners in the south to give to Scottish pensioners...
As Cameron found out not 12 months ago... When politicians decide to go to war with their electorate typically there's only one loser...
Morning GIN, not like you to be pushing Tory lies. We pay dearly to keep our pensioners warm in the winter, if people in England are greedy Barstewards and happy to vote Nasty party to cut the WFA , look at them , don't try to blame other people who are putting their hands in their pockets and missing out on other things to help their pensioners.
They'll be able to review the detail before it gets to parliament, but they can't unprint the manifesto, and to try and do so would be the worst of both worlds.
The bigger mistake by the Tories was hiding away and complacently leaving the field for Labour to lose. So they now find themselves on the back foot having to respond.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.
This is what is going to happen.
I could imagine there being some "clarification" on the income level of those who will DEFINITELY keep the Winter Fuel Allowance. Keep a chunk of the crumblies happy.
I think the trouble is when you add all of Farron's views up. It's one thing when his views on abortion, homosexuality, and fox hunting are in isolation. But altogether? He comes off more as a social conservative. Especially with the fox hunting thing. That's one area where you can't just have a view that doesn't really affect anyone.
The Foreign secretary tells the Peston on Sunday programme: “I do understand people’s reservations and the questions people are asking about the detail.
“There will be a consultation to get it right.”
Boris always tacks towards the fence regardless of the question being asked.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
According to BBC front page, Green has specifically said they will not amend the policy.
This is what is going to happen.
I could imagine there being some "clarification" on the income level of those who will DEFINITELY keep the Winter Fuel Allowance. Keep a chunk of the crumblies happy.
Already done that. Less than £153 keep
ie Pension Credit Guarenteed 1 million keep 10 million lose
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
Well, it fell into the political hole of reminding people that the current situation is actually shit. It didn't create a situation where lots of people will lose their homes - that's already the case.
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.
Well I did not think I would say this but having watched Marr this morning , I would prefer McDonnell in power rather than Green . Fortunately I do not live in a marginal seat so will not have any pressure to choose between Labour and the Conservatives .
Yes the main thing viewers will remember is that Green, apart from not being particularly impressive in the interview this morning, apparently pocketed a fat wodge in privatised water - the Tories are visibly beginning to wobble badly now.
Unfortunately only Sky Bet are offering a market on the Indianapolis 500, but the betting does look a bit skewed towards names people know. Alonso is joint favourite at 8-1 and Juan Pablo Montoya is 10-1 which look far too short.
The race is a bit like the Grand National in that you have to survive in tact to the last 20 laps or so and then be in position to have a go, so there's a lot of luck in terms of not being taken out and hoping the cautions play to your advantage.
I've had a few quid on JR Hildebrand at 28-1. He made the Top 9 shootout for pole tonight and he's come close before (he crashed on the final corner in 2011 while leading).
I like the comparison to the Grand National. Half the field won't finish, and for most of them it will be pure luck whether they get caught up in someone else's accident or mistime a fuel stop against a yellow.
After the car crash interview by Green just now on Marr and seeing the open goal presented to McDonnell, I really do think this toxic Tory policy (plus the WFA debacle) could now put Corbyn in No10.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
In what world does a Tory lead of 9-18% result in a win for Corbyn?
There won't be a Tory lead of 9-18 points though once this cold sick policy is further digested over the next fortnight.
If the lead reduces to 5 points then May loses her majority, will be untenable as Tory leader and Corbyn will be PM in my view.
Dominic Raab getting back to Brexit and strong leadership. Pretty good job of defending the 'honest' care proposals too. Much better than Damian Green.
Damian Green doing a reasonable job of defending the social care policy now.
I must have missed the nano second when that occurred.
He was drowning at the start on the figures in the manifesto, but I thought he recovered somewhat near the end and gave a good account of himself on the social care issue.
McDonnell now arguing that rich pensioners should pay less for social care, but still won't say where the money comes from.
Has Green answered one of the fundamental questions on this piece of manifesto madness: that is, will the private, City-based insurance industry be running State-enforced Equitable Release schemes on people's homes to pay care costs?
No but there was talk of "consultation and Green Paper". If they still get in the turkey will be taken out and shot and will emerge as a fowl of a different feather.
I thought the whole point of this election was to give May a mandate.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
Take your point, and that's what we have to decide on in a couple of weeks, but I suspect it would be amended in reality.
Not really in May's style to row back like that.
She's rolled back in the past when her policies have faced a backlash.
"Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans" now the headline on bbc news. She has burnt her bridges.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.
Nah, I still think Leadsom would have been pretty bad.
This saga is a larger statement on the lack of political talent among both parties in this country.
For that reason the foreseeable future does not look bright.
What a strange election. The Greens (Lucas and Bartley) and SNP (Salmond and Sturgeon) seem to have more leadership talent than Tories, Labour and LDs combined.
If though, Mr Timothy is in charge of this thinking, is it a sequel to the problems they had with Mr Cummings?
I doubt Crosby's plan was to go to "landslide" via "twitchy underwear" any more than Dunkirk was part of the plan for Normandy.
Curbing pensioner benefits after all the shelter they've had is morally right "all in it together" etc. The long term care situation also needs looking at for all our sakes so we will benefit from it being now firmly on the agenda. The essentials of the route they have chosen is that hateful word "progressive" in that rich southerners are going to be the supply of money for poor northerners at its most blunt. Ok they have chosen to individualise the risk which is a further choice but someone in a two up two down in Salford benefits over a £5m pad owner in Chelsea.
But thrice but, as an act of salesmanship, it's dire. These are a "masterclass" in creating doubt and fear. Marr is roasting Damian Green right now as to what level the WFA
Ditto long term care. As I said at it's heart "progressive" (though risk is not pooled which is v odd) but it's way way too complex to explain on the doorstep two and a half weeks before an election. All folk hear is "they're taking my house if I'm ill, sort of, aren't they?". People are very very very emotive about their homes. You can use all the logic you like they won't listen, they'll just go into defence mode.
Facts are largely irrelevant "it's perception stupid ". If you are explaining you're losing. The Tories are explaining a lot on this, even as Labour's own policies are collectively "moon on a stick".
This policy stank of polling disaster from the moment Theresa May stood up to launch the manifesto.
The perception is generally awful by sounds of it. Although bit of a mixed response in my own family. Several terrified by the sound of it all - "losing control of our homes", one or two saying "let's wait for the detail".
I think the latter are being highly naive.
The polling on the policy itself suggests that it's not especially unpopular.
I suspect that the people who oppose the controversial policies have stronger feelings about them than those who support the policies.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.
That's always the case. All changes produce winners and losers. The people who are angry are those who view the welfare state as a kind of all you can eat buffet, where once you've paid into the system, you're damn well going to claim all you can, rather than viewing it as a safety net.
A safety net with half of the netting stolen isnt functional
Sophy on Sky just skewered Tim Farron with a quote from 2009 in support of repealing the hunting ban.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
The anti abortion thing we already know about.
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
There has been some internal debate in the Lib Dems re fox-hunting. Opposition to the ban was very much in the minority, but it came from the liberal-as-in-libertarian wing rather than the dominant liberal-as-in-social-liberal wing. It's still a view rooted in a deep liberal principle - let people do as they will, unless they are harming others - but it is increasingly out of place in a Lib Dem party that has a more cosmopolitan outlook.
In fact philosophically it's coming from a not entirely dissimilar place as Lib Dem views on the deciminalisation of drugs ... or go back some decades, to the legalisation of gay sex.
In what fucked up world would you borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds to buy back privatised industries - rather than spend it on health, education, housing.....
You're making the same mistake as McMao of confusing spending with investment. Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
Let's have McMao go into the market and ask to borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds. And see what rates he is getting then....
And how is a Socialist Government going into the business of running trains and water and etc etc etc "investment"?
Comments
Oh, and it's an heroic assumption that government borrowing rates will stay as they are under Corbyn and McMao.
Despite being arguably fairer than the status quo, it is reminding people that they will be unable to pass on their house (save a 100k residual) if they need long term care. I suspect millions don't actually realise this already happens anyway without floor or cap asi understand it but the perception is that this is a new Tory policy - we'll take your kids' inheritance off them.
As every Tory interviewee gets skewered on this every day now on and as the Tory press goes big on this, there must be a real risk now that the Tory lead evaporates to nothing or tiny numbers? As Corbyn continues to campaign well and impress on the stump with his utopian visions funded by magic money tree, I really do fear the worst now.
There's no way round this now for the Tories. Bed made, lie in it. They have torpedoed themselves.
Cretins.
Is there any sign of the Unionist vote moving away from the Tories?
particularly in the cities. All the PB Scots are either SNP or SCon, so we are rather short of SLab or SLD views.
So, I am going to take her at her word as far as the manifesto is concerned: there will be some kind of State-enforced scheme to take wealth from property to pay for social care down to a floor of £100K.
This will either by via Local Authority charges on property or some newly minted "account" run by insurance companies that is basically another form of equity release with all the issues of costs of the scheme and interest rates etc etc.
There will no longer be free care within the home for those who have some assets.
https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/866215741363826688
We are at peak May at the moment and there must be a possibility that the WC Brexiters might strike out to the left next time if Brexit is failing to deliver for them.
I was really expecting the Lib Dems to be snapping at Labour's heals by now but it's not happening. I think, like many writing Labour's obituary, I failed to account for the fact that the Labour brand is still preferred to the Conservative brand. This time they are pulling in votes by masquerading as the Theresa May Party, how long it will work is another matter.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/poll-15-of-scottish-voters-plan-to-vote-tactically-1-4451912
Nationalisation (particularly if carrried out by the bunch of halfwits proposing it) is not a particularly sensible policy, but the financing of it at current borrowing rates (and assuming a competent government) is not indefensible.
The 'fucked up world' you ask about is the one in which government can borrow very large sums at what were, until quite recently, inconceivably low interest rates.
My point was simply that as an investment it might make sense. They always have the option of doing what Blair tried with Royal Mail - own the shares but otherwise let the industry pretty much run itself, just as it would with any other shareholder.
Sometimes government is very short sighted. I remember when Pickles was telling local councils to sell all their property as part of the austerity costs; my council looked at its portfolio and most of the commercial side was making a much better return than we could get from any other source. A council holds a batch of shops and offices and renting them out at commercial rates, using the income to support public services, would be mad to sell up, a fact that Pickles despite being a Tory seemed to struggle with.
But many are voting by post already.
It has certainly go down like a cup of cold sick in my household. We were promised a cap and now there won't be one.
Edit: and a quote about him being anti-abortion.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/poll-15-of-scottish-voters-plan-to-vote-tactically-1-4451912
With all of these positions combined though, I have to ask: why is he a LD?
https://twitter.com/jon_trickett/status/866214753634570246
If the lead reduces to 5 points then May loses her majority, will be untenable as Tory leader and Corbyn will be PM in my view.
The race is a bit like the Grand National in that you have to survive in tact to the last 20 laps or so and then be in position to have a go, so there's a lot of luck in terms of not being taken out and hoping the cautions play to your advantage.
I've had a few quid on JR Hildebrand at 28-1. He made the Top 9 shootout for pole tonight and he's come close before (he crashed on the final corner in 2011 while leading).
SNP 44%, Tories 28%.
The social care cap was due to be introduced in 2020.
Cameron already announced in 2015 that he wouldn’t serve a full term.
So, it was always just posturing. It is easy to solve problems by pushing the problem onto your successor, which is all the social care cap ever was.
Now, whoever is elected in 2017 will have to solve the problem, and I’m afraid that there are no simple answers.
Apart from the EU worship.
This is what is going to happen.
Leadsom would not have been worse than this.
I'd say yes you can. It's possible to have your own view on something while allowing others to take a different point of view.
Were it not for their stance on the EU, I'd certainly consider voting LD over a more authoritarian Conservative party.
As Cameron found out not 12 months ago... When politicians decide to go to war with their electorate typically there's only one loser...
How I did that, I just don't know.
https://twitter.com/guardiananushka/status/866223385696718848
This saga is a larger statement on the lack of political talent among both parties in this country.
For that reason the foreseeable future does not look bright.
They are therefore more likely to be outspoken and/or change their vote.
I see that last night's discussion continues. This link tabulates the proportion of house value needed to fund residential care in different parts of the county.
https://www.royallondon.com/about/media/news/2017/march/half-the-value-of-your-home-at-risk-from-average-care-home-stay/
The Foreign secretary tells the Peston on Sunday programme: “I do understand people’s reservations and the questions people are asking about the detail.
“There will be a consultation to get it right.”
The bigger mistake by the Tories was hiding away and complacently leaving the field for Labour to lose. So they now find themselves on the back foot having to respond.
I think the trouble is when you add all of Farron's views up. It's one thing when his views on abortion, homosexuality, and fox hunting are in isolation. But altogether? He comes off more as a social conservative. Especially with the fox hunting thing. That's one area where you can't just have a view that doesn't really affect anyone.
YouGov Con lead vs Lab (diff vs 16/17)
18-24: -33 (+3)
25-49 :-16 (-8)
50-65: +21 (-2)
65+ : +50 (-3)
ie Pension Credit Guarenteed 1 million keep 10 million lose
That said, 28-1 on Hildebrand seems like value.
If though, Mr Timothy is in charge of this thinking, is it a sequel to the problems they had with Mr Cummings?
In fact philosophically it's coming from a not entirely dissimilar place as Lib Dem views on the deciminalisation of drugs ... or go back some decades, to the legalisation of gay sex.
Let's have McMao go into the market and ask to borrow a quarter of a trillion pounds. And see what rates he is getting then....
And how is a Socialist Government going into the business of running trains and water and etc etc etc "investment"?
Anyway - this is what the choice is people
Do you really think a marxist chancellor who thinks understanding capitalism is an effective insult is what we need as a country?
https://order-order.com/2017/05/21/mcdonnell-v-green-handbags/
Green: “You don’t understand capitalism.”
McDonnell: “You certainly do, don’t you.“