Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed.
It puzzles me why the Tories haven't gone after him on this.
I think he voted in favour. I also think some papers have been muddying the water by talking about Anglo Irish agreement which he opposed. I think Dinner From, UUP and DUP also opposed that one.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
@MyBurningEars I know that he doesn't want an outright ban, but my point was that it does want to impose his morality on others, he just wants to do it in the form of restrictions as opposed an outright ban. Right now there are already limits on when you can have an abortion, he wants further restrictions on top of that. That's not really having a ''private view but allowing others to do as they please''.
I have to disagree with you, re Farron's position on abortion being consistent with liberal principles. Generally, a view of the unborn as human beings with 'rights' (before 24 weeks) is a socially Conservative position. Liberals, have erred towards advocating the position of the mother's right to autonomy over her body (this is even in the case of those who morally disagree with abortion on the Left - e.g. Joe Biden in the States), and it is not really a liberal position to see a weeks old ''unborn'' as a human being with the exact same rights as its mother.
In regard to foxes being others, well I'm talking about that within the context of modern social liberalism, not necessarily what country folk think, as they don't tend to be very liberal anyway.
I've also not advocated people facing jail time for killing foxes, so I don't know where that's come up. Just that it is doing harm to a living being when you hunt a fox. That was literally my point.
I've also not advocated for late-term abortion on demand, so I don't know where that's come up either.
When he won the leadership I don't think many knew about these views he had - most saw him as way more to the left of the party than Clegg. His views on abortion, homosexuality, and fox hunting complicates that.
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
How can it be a 'stealth' tax if we're discussing it?
Some are complaining it's been too honest and should have been hidden Others are complaining it's hidden and stealth tax.
What it does show is why making 'big' commitments on decade-long thorny issues is 'brave' in the febrile atmosphere of a General Election.... I hope they stick it through rather than kick it bank in to the long-grass yet again.
Take a look at her policies and give her Labour branding and you'll realise she is. It's why I think the party will dump her once Brexit is finalised.
I think she's way more statist than your average Tory, but there are a number of her policies that Social Democrats (generally) wouldn't pursue.
For example:
- Her desire to regulate the Internet, especially in regard to countering the dangers of 'pornography' - Her social care policy - Her desire to leave the Single Market - Her immigration target
If the party dumps her after Brexit, who could they replace her with?
She is socially conservative but economically social democrat. Or, more likely, doesn't have any particularly strong views on the economy and is simply going where she thinks Brexit points her.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
But it does mean your previous post was a lie
'It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water. '
Where is the lie here? I asked a legitimate question. 'Can anyone verify this?' is a clue.
That is probably the most difficult scenario, to which the answer is that the doctors should deliver the baby at the latest stage possible and do all they can to preserve life.
Preserve the life of who - the mother or the baby?
Personally, I think your view on abortion is a bit extreme. I don't think we should let mothers die otherwise, pregnancy becomes this huge death risk. As a woman I'd like to think our value extends outside of simply being incubators - especially since I can't have kids, biologically at least.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
All this IRA stuff is a) old and b) undermined by the revelation that the Tory government was talking to the IRA at the same time as both criticising others for doing so and dubbing actors' voices over any SF spokesman who appeared on the news. There are big issues with Corbyn's fitness to lead, starting with the obvious fact that he doesn't even have the confidence of most of his own party colleagues. But I don't see this one getting much traction.
Andrew Neil on Tories' social care plan: "A stealth inheritance tax of 100% on everything above £100,000."
PB Tories shouting at TV "Its not a Tax"
Viewers cant hear
A 100% Stealth tax is theft in my view
How can it be a 'stealth' tax if we're discussing it?
Some are complaining it's been too honest and should have been hidden Others are complaining it's hidden and stealth tax.
What it does show is why making 'big' commitments on decade-long thorny issues is 'brave' in the febrile atmosphere of a General Election.... I hope they stick it through rather than kick it bank in to the long-grass yet again.
I agree; now that pensions funding is to some extent 'resolved' it was the next issue that needed long term political commitment, followed by the NHS (which I suspect won't be properly addressed anytime in the next decade).
The best analogy I can come up with for the manifesto commitment is that it's a bit like turning over a stone that everyone suspects has a scorpion under it just before you're about to walk past it. Brave, yes, but why not wait until you've got to the other side?
On topic: no, @MikeSmithson, the election remains easy to call. At Bob Worcester says: look at the share, not the lead. All the polling since the election was called has been consistent with a Tory share of 45-46 points with the occasional outlier. As long as that remains the case, a comfortable majority is certain because the smaller and regional parties aren't getting squeezed below 15% combined at the very least, and unlikely to get squeezed below 18%. 45-37 is still a comfortable majority.
See last night's thread where somebody (@Black_Rook perhaps?) crunched the numbers in detail.
Sporting's mid-spread on Tory seats this morning is 387, while Spreadex's is 388. (They go 173 and 170 respectively as regards Labour seats.) Their average therefore of 387.5 Tory seats is equivalent to the Blue Team scoring an overall majority of 125 seats. Against such a background, I'm not sure exactly what all the excitement is about.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Preventing a referendum on Scottish independence until after the Brexit process has been completed England (Scotland) Good idea : 55 (47) Wrong priority : 23 (37)
I'm a bit puzzled by these questions: "good idea" and "wrong priority" are not antonyms.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
I think there were plenty of amendments - it's possible he voted against the government on some of those. But his speech and vote are a pretty clear endorsement of the final bill. If you can find those links it would be interesting - I could imagine him pushing the government further on prisoners rights for instance...
Fox Hunting well, affects foxes - so it's kind of not the same as having personally negative views on homosexuality but not imposing them via law. If you advocate for Fox Hunting, or at least don't want to get rid of it, then it will obviously affect foxes.
Hunting is coming up on the doorstep more often than I'd expected - it's seen as a marker issue and the wish to reopen the subject is seen as a hard-right preoccupation even by people with no strong views themselves. I'm not sure most people know what Farron thinks but May's opening the door has put off some potential Tory voters in the suburbs. In particular it reinforces the "stop the landslide" meme, as it's an example of the sort of thing that a huge Tory majority could do which otherwise won't happen.
I jad a classic floating voter yesterday. Pleasant and interesting woman. Voted Lab in 2010, UKIP in 2015. Family stilll Lab. Likes her Labour MP. Thinks Corbyn weak. Dislikes Europe. Doesn't like the Tories. Likes May's care proposals. Loves animals, hates hunting. Has no idea whether she'll vote Lab, UKIP or Tory.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
But it does mean your previous post was a lie
'It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water. '
Where is the lie here? I asked a legitimate question. 'Can anyone verify this?' is a clue.
OK apologies your previous undestanding was wrong.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
Does this include tax on assets?
There are two problems with funding it out of general taxation:-
1. Younger people, who've been far harder hit by austerity than older people, will be hit again.
2. Taxing income to protect capital is bad economics,
I was hoping I'd have a nice simple election to bet on with the Tories smashing everyone else out the park.
Why couldn't they have consulted Emmanuel Macron on how to take a commanding position, and extend it ?
Amateurs mean I'm actually going to have to check my positions now. It's a headache I could do without.
But is Theresa May Macron or Fillon? Macron only won because Fillon imploded. Fillon was long odds-on until it emerged he was paying his wife to put the bins out.
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
It doesn't absolve him of his past associations with the IRA.
Or, to put it another way, "I was wrong to say he voted against". Are you a politician or something?
No, I said it was my understanding, could anyone verifty it. Please read what I said. Are YOU a politican?
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
All this IRA stuff is a) old and b) undermined by the revelation that the Tory government was talking to the IRA at the same time as both criticising others for doing so and dubbing actors' voices over any SF spokesman who appeared on the news. There are big issues with Corbyn's fitness to lead, starting with the obvious fact that he doesn't even have the confidence of most of his own party colleagues. But I don't see this one getting much traction.
Well, he did make an equivalence between the British Amy and the IRA. We all just heard him do so in that radio interview on TSP. I wonder how many pensioners are aware of that.
Of course, the Army did some bad things back then - but Corbyn is putting himself forward as a potenital PM, not as a private individual cosying up to his preferred side in the Troubles. He was squarely against the British state.
It is worse than an IHT on everything over £100K. Because you won't pay any of it if you are one of the lucky ones who gets through life without needing substantial social care.
At least a real IHT stealth tax would apply to everyone who had the requisite level of asset, not just the ones who are unlucky.
Fox Hunting well, affects foxes - so it's kind of not the same as having personally negative views on homosexuality but not imposing them via law. If you advocate for Fox Hunting, or at least don't want to get rid of it, then it will obviously affect foxes.
Hunting is coming up on the doorstep more often than I'd expected - it's seen as a marker issue and the wish to reopen the subject is seen as a hard-right preoccupation even by people with no strong views themselves. I'm not sure most people know what Farron thinks but May's opening the door has put off some potential Tory voters in the suburbs. In particular it reinforces the "stop the landslide" meme, as it's an example of the sort of thing that a huge Tory majority could do which otherwise won't happen.
I jad a classic floating voter yesterday. Pleasant and interesting woman. Voted Lab in 2010, UKIP in 2015. Family stilll Lab. Likes her Labour MP. Thinks Corbyn weak. Dislikes Europe. Doesn't like the Tories. Likes May's care proposals. Loves animals, hates hunting. Has no idea whether she'll vote Lab, UKIP or Tory.
Aren't most people like this? Political and social views are informed by our life experiences and relationships rather than dogma.
By the way, I think your move to Compassion in World Farming is an excellent one. I hope you will be able to achieve good things.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
Does this include tax on assets?
There are two problems with funding it out of general taxation:-
1. Younger people, who've been far harder hit by austerity than older people, will be hit again.
2. Taxing income to protect capital is bad economics,
Axing the triple lock and WFA (two policies directly related to retired people) will save enough money to pump into social care, at least in the short to medium term.
Fox Hunting well, affects foxes - so it's kind of not the same as having personally negative views on homosexuality but not imposing them via law. If you advocate for Fox Hunting, or at least don't want to get rid of it, then it will obviously affect foxes.
Hunting is coming up on the doorstep more often than I'd expected - it's seen as a marker issue and the wish to reopen the subject is seen as a hard-right preoccupation even by people with no strong views themselves. I'm not sure most people know what Farron thinks but May's opening the door has put off some potential Tory voters in the suburbs. In particular it reinforces the "stop the landslide" meme, as it's an example of the sort of thing that a huge Tory majority could do which otherwise won't happen.
I jad a classic floating voter yesterday. Pleasant and interesting woman. Voted Lab in 2010, UKIP in 2015. Family stilll Lab. Likes her Labour MP. Thinks Corbyn weak. Dislikes Europe. Doesn't like the Tories. Likes May's care proposals. Loves animals, hates hunting. Has no idea whether she'll vote Lab, UKIP or Tory.
Interesting.
I think you're right that Fox Hunting thing is seen as a hard-right preoccupation, most people don't care about it, and if they express a view, it's for keeping the ban. It also undermines May's attempts to appear centrist.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
But they need to get round the potental obstacle of the House of Pensioners. Which needs a clear reference in the manifesto.
Not really "we will take necessary steps to ensure a fully funded social care system within the UK, a royal commission will be set up to report this time next year on the best way to do this". That's literally all they needed to say, make the royal commission report come out with the these conclusions.
I was hoping I'd have a nice simple election to bet on with the Tories smashing everyone else out the park.
Why couldn't they have consulted Emmanuel Macron on how to take a commanding position, and extend it ?
Amateurs mean I'm actually going to have to check my positions now. It's a headache I could do without.
In the first round Macron only won by 3% and trailed Le Pen in the regions overall, he only won the big landslide in the runoff when he was head to head with Le Pen, the UK system prevents May going head to head with Corbyn
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Please explain. Minimum wage workers, by definition, would be on the lowest tax band. Are you saying, the basic rate of tax should be cut and some form of wealth tax should be brought in ?
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
Well, now people have to think about it.
Maybe that is what a General Election campaign should properly be about? Thinking about big ticket items?
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
Mr. Owls, I'm glad the seat markets (ie bands of totals rather than constituencies) I've bet on are the Lib Dems only and not the blues or reds. Actually, the Labour resurgence is, if anything, making likelier the yellows will get under 20 seats.
As for consulting Macron for advice on keeping a large lead, that was entirely unnecessary. The idea of introducing a sudden policy without proper forewarning or examination of the detail, in a sensitive area that directly affects those most likely to vote is so obviously stupid you'd need to be a grade A moron to just jam it in at the last moment over the objections of others.
Even if people believe the policy is actually fair (I am unpersuaded), it's not gone down well in campaign terms.
Edited extra bit: this exempts the 7 I backed for the Conservatives to get 350-374 seats, but that was after Theresa May decided to try and be the political equivalent of Brewster. Down to 5.5 now.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Jason: And now you're wriggling from one post to another, like a slithery politician . In your original post you said:
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
That is probably the most difficult scenario, to which the answer is that the doctors should deliver the baby at the latest stage possible and do all they can to preserve life.
Preserve the life of who - the mother or the baby?
Personally, I think your view on abortion is a bit extreme. I don't think we should let mothers die otherwise, pregnancy becomes this huge death risk. As a woman I'd like to think our value extends outside of simply being incubators - especially since I can't have kids, biologically at least.
I think that doctors should seek to preserve life, so in your scenario they should deliver the baby as late as possible while still preserving the mother's life, then make every effort to save the child. Modern neonatal care sees babies born from as little as 20 weeks survive.
It's often too easy for the medics to take the easy way out in these scenarios, my view is that doctors should not actively seek to end life, rather they should seek to preserve it.
Sadly increased availability of abortion on demand has reduced substantially the number of babies available for adoption. From a purely financial point of view, I also don't understand why there are abortions being carried out at one end of the hospital, and expensive fertility treatments at the other end - both on the NHS.
The Catholic Church used to look after young women who fell pregnant and were deserted by the father, Sadly their adoption agencies were shut down because they didn't believe in placing babies with homosexual couples.
Sorry to hear of your personal situation, from my own experience these things are not so simple even when the doctors say that all the bits are working properly.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
In my experience, as a solicitor, the cost of residential care is a considerable worry for older people.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
Boris pointedly didn't confirm on Peston if cabinet had been consulted on this "we're consulted on all sorts of things" was pretty much his phrase. So they were in the dark. I imagine Lyndon Crosby is eviscerating those responsible for putting in at the last minute right now.
Can't fathom out why they can't say on the WFA "all pensioners on less than £x are not going to be worse off". Would take the heat out of that one ('scuse pun).
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Please explain. Minimum wage workers, by definition, would be on the lowest tax band. Are you saying, the basic rate of tax should be cut and some form of wealth tax should be brought in ?
BJO is arguing for collective taxation (from us all presumably) to pay for free care for people with vast amounts of wealth, so the situation where someone gets paid £7.50 an hour for a full time job leads to their taxes funding the wealthy.
That isn't 'progressive' at all.
Nor are winter fuel payments for millionaires and nor are free tuition fees that most benefit students who will go on to earn over £100k a year.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Have to say George leaving Parliament is the most regretful decision of this election campaign. He would easily have been the front runner to depose and replace SDP Theresa in 2020 once Brexit was complete. Now I don't know if there is anyone left in the party who can take her down, maybe Javid?
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
How many in the Tory party were involved in the decision to scrap a lifetime cap? Seems maybe about three people. Rest of party now scrambling to come up with reasons why this was a good idea (Green) or why it might be consulted on further (Boris).
It is in the manifesto and that is because the HoL would have been told you cannot make any changes as it is in the manifesto.
Regarding Isabel Oakeshott's point that it will not be implemented: she is probably correct. Even with 400 MPs, the shires will be in rebellion.
Then, the question turns to political judgement. If that will indeed be the outcome, then why go through all the negative publicity.
Please don't write in that she is some sort of a heroine. Just a lousy politician.
But they need to get round the potental obstacle of the House of Pensioners. Which needs a clear reference in the manifesto.
Not really "we will take necessary steps to ensure a fully funded social care system within the UK, a royal commission will be set up to report this time next year on the best way to do this". That's literally all they needed to say, make the royal commission report come out with the these conclusions.
So you are not against it in principle but would just have liked to have taken a cynical approach to it?
And people wonder why voters are cynical about politicians.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Have to say George leaving Parliament is the most regretful decision of this election campaign. He would easily have been the front runner to depose and replace SDP Theresa in 2020 once Brexit was complete. Now I don't know if there is anyone left in the party who can take her down, maybe Javid?
Corbyn outright denies he was on the editorial board of the magazine that published the pro-IRA article. Sophy's making him angry!
It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water.
Correct, he voted against the Good Friday Agreement. This is in the Parliamentary record.
I think Andrew Neil might be somewhat harder on this point than the young Sophy, who admitted that this was all before she was born. (Wiki reckons she's 32).
Hmm, just spent a bit of time researching this and there were several votes for several things NI-related around the same time. He certainly spoke against the GFA but I can't find Hansard online that far back. Certainly he voted against the previous Anglo-Irish Agreement, there may be some confusion between the two.
I think there were plenty of amendments - it's possible he voted against the government on some of those. But his speech and vote are a pretty clear endorsement of the final bill. If you can find those links it would be interesting - I could imagine him pushing the government further on prisoners rights for instance...
You've got me going on this now, have challenged me on something I was certain about having read several times. Will do some more research this afternoon and come back to you, sadly I'm too far away from the Commons research library to dig out old paper Hansard copies.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
they don't pay income tax.
Thanks to this Government, yes, many more than under Labour don't pay income tax.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
Well, now people have to think about it.
Maybe that is what a General Election campaign should properly be about? Thinking about big ticket items?
Yes very true. Very noble. And if TM is there still on June 9th with a decent enough majority fair enough. But presentationally it's a clusterf*** and we all know it.
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.
Does the all-you-can-eat buffet analogy really apply here? It is not as if people are deliberately getting Alzheimer's or Parkinson's to claim their quota of brain scans.
Top post but dont expect PB Tories to get it
The all-you-can-eat buffet analogy is a bit unfortunate, but it isn't wrong in the way you think it is. You think it self-evident that your own money is there for paying for nice things, someone else ought to pay for the consequences of nasty things. Not so: if your house falls down or your car breaks down, that is your lookout unless you have an insurer or a welfare state behind you. At the moment home care is outwith the welfare state and the debate is about whether it is brought within it. Thinking that you can surreptitiously bring it within the welfare state at no extra cost, because it has a sort of NHS-y feel about it, is paying for a fixed price 3 course meal and trying to leverage another two courses out of the restaurant for no extra money.
Nobody thinks it can be brought in for free. I think pooling is the way forward.
Much better than theft.
Pooling is what people euphemistically call tax isn't it? The tax that only the 2% should pay.
I like Progressive Taxation.
I think its fairer
You want minimum wage workers in bedsits to subsidise people with hundreds of thousands of pounds in assets, so clearly you don't.
Please explain. Minimum wage workers, by definition, would be on the lowest tax band. Are you saying, the basic rate of tax should be cut and some form of wealth tax should be brought in ?
BJO is arguing for collective taxation (from us all presumably) to pay for free care for people with vast amounts of wealth, so the situation where someone gets paid £7.50 an hour for a full time job leads to their taxes funding the wealthy.
That isn't 'progressive' at all.
Nor are winter fuel payments for millionaires and nor are free tuition fees that most benefit students who will go on to earn over £100k a year.
These are all Labour policy at the moment.
Not correct. Labour will collect extra money from those earning more than £80k and from companies.
Comments
I also think some papers have been muddying the water by talking about Anglo Irish agreement which he opposed. I think Dinner From, UUP and DUP also opposed that one.
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=1998-07-20&number=340&mpn=Jeremy_Corbyn&mpc=Islington_North&house=commons
80% receive Care at home. Their house was 100% safe before the Pound Shop Thatcher House Snatcher Policy,
Social Care needs to be paid for by the many not the few.
I know that he doesn't want an outright ban, but my point was that it does want to impose his morality on others, he just wants to do it in the form of restrictions as opposed an outright ban. Right now there are already limits on when you can have an abortion, he wants further restrictions on top of that. That's not really having a ''private view but allowing others to do as they please''.
I have to disagree with you, re Farron's position on abortion being consistent with liberal principles. Generally, a view of the unborn as human beings with 'rights' (before 24 weeks) is a socially Conservative position. Liberals, have erred towards advocating the position of the mother's right to autonomy over her body (this is even in the case of those who morally disagree with abortion on the Left - e.g. Joe Biden in the States), and it is not really a liberal position to see a weeks old ''unborn'' as a human being with the exact same rights as its mother.
In regard to foxes being others, well I'm talking about that within the context of modern social liberalism, not necessarily what country folk think, as they don't tend to be very liberal anyway.
I've also not advocated people facing jail time for killing foxes, so I don't know where that's come up. Just that it is doing harm to a living being when you hunt a fox. That was literally my point.
I've also not advocated for late-term abortion on demand, so I don't know where that's come up either.
When he won the leadership I don't think many knew about these views he had - most saw him as way more to the left of the party than Clegg. His views on abortion, homosexuality, and fox hunting complicates that.
Others are complaining it's hidden and stealth tax.
What it does show is why making 'big' commitments on decade-long thorny issues is 'brave' in the febrile atmosphere of a General Election.... I hope they stick it through rather than kick it bank in to the long-grass yet again.
What I also said is it does not absolve in any way his association with a terrorist organisation. Like everyone keeps saying, perception is everything, only Corbyn giving succour to the IRA is not a perception - it is an incontrovertible fact.
As has been pointed out by another poster many people who are cared for at home eventually have to move to residential care.
I think its fairer
'It was my understanding Corbyn voted AGAINST the Good Friday Agreement? Can anyone verify this? If he did, it blows his 'I was doing it for peace' line out of the water. '
Where is the lie here? I asked a legitimate question. 'Can anyone verify this?' is a clue.
Personally, I think your view on abortion is a bit extreme. I don't think we should let mothers die otherwise, pregnancy becomes this huge death risk. As a woman I'd like to think our value extends outside of simply being incubators - especially since I can't have kids, biologically at least.
The best analogy I can come up with for the manifesto commitment is that it's a bit like turning over a stone that everyone suspects has a scorpion under it just before you're about to walk past it. Brave, yes, but why not wait until you've got to the other side?
See last night's thread where somebody (@Black_Rook perhaps?) crunched the numbers in detail.
Their average therefore of 387.5 Tory seats is equivalent to the Blue Team scoring an overall majority of 125 seats. Against such a background, I'm not sure exactly what all the excitement is about.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Palmer
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1985/nov/27/anglo-irish-agreement#S6CV0087P0_19851127_HOC_294
Seems to be getting confused with 98.
He was (is?) a Republican, thus an agreement maintaining NI as part of the UK was to be opposed.
1. There was previously a risk that the amount that you can leave to your family after taking account of your care costs for the rest of your life would be reduced to £23k. With this new proposal from the Conservatives, you can be sure that up to £100k will be available to leave to them. Do you think this is a good idea?
2. There was previously a risk that you would have to sell and leave your home to cover your care costs. That risk has now gone away, for both you and your spouse. Do you think this is a good idea?
3. In order to achieve 1 and 2 above, the Government is proposing that the value of all your assets - including your home - be included when assessing how much of a contribution you have to make to your own care costs for the rest of your life. Do you think this is fair?
Why couldn't they have consulted Emmanuel Macron on how to take a commanding position, and extend it ?
Amateurs mean I'm actually going to have to check my positions now. It's a headache I could do without.
I jad a classic floating voter yesterday. Pleasant and interesting woman. Voted Lab in 2010, UKIP in 2015. Family stilll Lab. Likes her Labour MP. Thinks Corbyn weak. Dislikes Europe. Doesn't like the Tories. Likes May's care proposals. Loves animals, hates hunting. Has no idea whether she'll vote Lab, UKIP or Tory.
1. Younger people, who've been far harder hit by austerity than older people, will be hit again.
2. Taxing income to protect capital is bad economics,
Of course, the Army did some bad things back then - but Corbyn is putting himself forward as a potenital PM, not as a private individual cosying up to his preferred side in the Troubles. He was squarely against the British state.
This stuff will not go away, and nor should it.
At least a real IHT stealth tax would apply to everyone who had the requisite level of asset, not just the ones who are unlucky.
Those who were bullish on total seats spreads have a bigger headache.
By the way, I think your move to Compassion in World Farming is an excellent one. I hope you will be able to achieve good things.
I think you're right that Fox Hunting thing is seen as a hard-right preoccupation, most people don't care about it, and if they express a view, it's for keeping the ban. It also undermines May's attempts to appear centrist.
All true. But until last Thursday I doubt more than 10% knew the current situation or that more than 0.1% were going to see it as an election issue. Telling people "your house is less in play than it was" is a useless defence against the blissful ignorance they were in till last Thursday when it hadn't even crossed their minds.
This is policy wonks off their reservation and finding out the real world doesnt think like them.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesTimes/status/866245430518190080
Maybe that is what a General Election campaign should properly be about? Thinking about big ticket items?
As for consulting Macron for advice on keeping a large lead, that was entirely unnecessary. The idea of introducing a sudden policy without proper forewarning or examination of the detail, in a sensitive area that directly affects those most likely to vote is so obviously stupid you'd need to be a grade A moron to just jam it in at the last moment over the objections of others.
Even if people believe the policy is actually fair (I am unpersuaded), it's not gone down well in campaign terms.
Edited extra bit: this exempts the 7 I backed for the Conservatives to get 350-374 seats, but that was after Theresa May decided to try and be the political equivalent of Brewster. Down to 5.5 now.
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/866067850661949440
I mean targeting Leeds East should have set off alarm bells
"So it destroys Corbyn's defence, then. The lie that he did all that stuff to encourage peace has to be nailed."
Not an impartial searcher for truth, as you now suggest. But the actual terminological inexactititude came from Sandpit, who stated flatly that Corbyn voted against and it was in the Parliamentary record when he voted in favour.
I suspect that you weren't deliberately lying and just seized on that to reinforce your instinctive prejudices (and that Sandpit also wasn't deliberately lying, just too lazy to check). But, instead of saying "OK, that was wrong", you wriggled instantly into attacking Corbyn on something else.
It doesn't really matter, as you're both anonymous blokes nattering on a message board. But we try to pull each other up when something is actually wrong, and it's better to admit it.
It's often too easy for the medics to take the easy way out in these scenarios, my view is that doctors should not actively seek to end life, rather they should seek to preserve it.
Sadly increased availability of abortion on demand has reduced substantially the number of babies available for adoption. From a purely financial point of view, I also don't understand why there are abortions being carried out at one end of the hospital, and expensive fertility treatments at the other end - both on the NHS.
The Catholic Church used to look after young women who fell pregnant and were deserted by the father, Sadly their adoption agencies were shut down because they didn't believe in placing babies with homosexual couples.
Sorry to hear of your personal situation, from my own experience these things are not so simple even when the doctors say that all the bits are working properly.
Can't fathom out why they can't say on the WFA "all pensioners on less than £x are not going to be worse off". Would take the heat out of that one ('scuse pun).
And not surprising given the negativity towards Corbyn in some parts of the media.
That isn't 'progressive' at all.
Nor are winter fuel payments for millionaires and nor are free tuition fees that most benefit students who will go on to earn over £100k a year.
These are all Labour policy at the moment.
Regarding Isabel Oakeshott's point that it will not be implemented: she is probably correct. Even with 400 MPs, the shires will be in rebellion.
Then, the question turns to political judgement. If that will indeed be the outcome, then why go through all the negative publicity.
Please don't write in that she is some sort of a heroine. Just a lousy politician.
And people wonder why voters are cynical about politicians.
given the tories would need to win by 20 points to push labour this low, this is easy money, surely?
We had the fergie cup, the Brown Nokia.
Will it be the Lynton laptop ?