It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
LOL, typical Tory, easy for the nasties to promise the world when they are terminal losers and know they will never have to implement anything. If the duffer ever got in she would be ordered by London to get it cancelled PDQ. She has more faces than the town clock.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Why ? What do you hope to gain by it ? This is now the 4th GE I have posted about on this site . Every GE some twat such as yourself appears following an agenda of their own thankfully to disappear from whence they came as soon as the election is over never to be heard of again .
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
How is it possible for SNP to lose only two seats yet the Tories gain 6. Kind of flawed logic somewhere.
3 are tossups which the Tories would all gain on the latest Yougov Scottish poll, the SNP pick up 1 from Labour (though I think Labour will hold through tactical voting)
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
Nope I gave it away to my kids 10 years ago now .
paying market rent?
It was in fact 12 years ago , sold which enabled both to put a decent deposit on a house of their own .
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
So you're predicting SCON MPs will be in double figurers.
That's one to remember.
It is a possibility on current Scottish polls yes, if they gain at least 9 and add them to the 1 they already have
You are definitely devoid of any clue about Scotland. You make Scott look like a genius.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Where have you been the last 3 days ? The £23k DID NOT INCLUDE the VALUE of your HOUSE. Now, with £100k, IT DOES !
Geddit !
Too many of the rich turnips on here are thick or pretend to be, They don't get the fact that it is poor people being stiffed. They have all their assets in trusts and hidden away so they will not be affected.
Except he was wrong on that in terms of residential care, before the £23k did include the value of your house, now that rises to £100k
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
Nope I gave it away to my kids 10 years ago now .
paying market rent?
It was in fact 12 years ago , sold which enabled both to put a decent deposit on a house of their own .
Glad to see IHT avoidance isn't just the purview of the evil right.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
They are paraphrases.
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Very worrying, if true. He will still have to do it if nothing changes and his house could be taken under existing system.
It's twitter. Land of loons
I thought the PB Tories were all in favour of anecdotage. This has probably as much or as little veracity as some anonymous bloke telling us what another anonymous bloke said about Corbyn down the saloon bar.
A few folk telling similar stories on the phone-ins this week should keep the cluster fuck clustering.
Political anoraks/policy wonks need to remember that the perception of the policy is more important than the actual policy.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
They are paraphrases.
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
The money will have to come from somewhere, because of the Barnett formula.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
@Jason Indeed. But now Palmer is just a pointless multi-faced own-feet-eating has-been.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting party.
Really? C'mon, let's slag off the Labour leadership rather than people who post on here.
Very amusingly you posted defence of the man that only seconds before Palmer commented that he's hit his "trolling quota" for the day.
For that comment - at least - I salute his honesty.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
Nope I gave it away to my kids 10 years ago now .
paying market rent?
It was in fact 12 years ago , sold which enabled both to put a decent deposit on a house of their own .
I read a suggestion that Momentum wanted to get its members to sign up for polling panels, so they could show their support for the Great Leader. Now, I would hope that these pollsters would have a way of ensuring that wasn't possible. But just in case - be interesting to see if there was any noticeable difference in results if they only used people who had been on their panels for 2 years or more.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
Nope I gave it away to my kids 10 years ago now .
paying market rent?
It was in fact 12 years ago , sold which enabled both to put a decent deposit on a house of their own .
Glad to see IHT avoidance isn't just the purview of the evil right.
planning please, not avoidance... avoidance and evasion are much conflated these days..
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Of course most voters will back means testing of WFA as long as they dont realise that the means testing means that they themselves ( or parents/grandparents ) will lose it .
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Very worrying, if true. He will still have to do it if nothing changes and his house could be taken under existing system.
It's twitter. Land of loons
I thought the PB Tories were all in favour of anecdotage. This has probably as much or as little veracity as some anonymous bloke telling us what another anonymous bloke said about Corbyn down the saloon bar.
A few folk telling similar stories on the phone-ins this week should keep the cluster fuck clustering.
Political anoraks/policy wonks need to remember that the perception of the policy is more important than the actual policy.
Absolutely. Of course there's a lot of inchoate fear and worry about elderly care out there already, and obviously a fair bit of ignorance about the existing not-very-good situation and rules. However in a stroke of absolute genius, Tessy and her mates have manage to center it all on their shiny, new proposal.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
Nope I gave it away to my kids 10 years ago now .
paying market rent?
It was in fact 12 years ago , sold which enabled both to put a decent deposit on a house of their own .
Glad to see IHT avoidance isn't just the purview of the evil right.
planning please, not avoidance... avoidance and evasion are much conflated these days..
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
So you're predicting SCON MPs will be in double figurers.
That's one to remember.
It is a possibility on current Scottish polls yes, if they gain at least 9 and add them to the 1 they already have
You are definitely devoid of any clue about Scotland. You make Scott look like a genius.
I can be on Labour in Brent Central at about 1/9 and in Leeds East at 1/6. These prices no longer make sense to me, though nobody'll become a millionaire at 1/6.
An excellent debate between Livni and Erekat on the World economic forum. Two very impressive politicians. Those tedious people who keep shouting ant Semite at Corbyn should stop reading silly articles by those with an axe to grind and watch the issues discussed intelligently.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Of course most voters will back means testing of WFA as long as they dont realise that the means testing means that they themselves ( or parents/grandparents ) will lose it .
Except most of them won't, which is the whole reason of means testing it so millionaires don't get WFA
An excellent debate between Livni and Erekat on the World economic forum. Two very impressive politicians. Those tedious people who keep shouting ant Semite at Corbyn should stop reading silly articles by those with an axe to grind and watch the issues discussed intelligently.
I think anti Semitism within the Labour party is a fair cop
"In just a few months, we have created almost a million new jobs, added over $3 trillion in new value".
Has anyone got an idea what he is talking about? US GDP is about $18tn per year. He has been in office for four months. The value created during that period will have been about $6tn. What does he mean by "new"?
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
They are paraphrases.
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
The money will have to come from somewhere, because of the Barnett formula.
This is why the imagery is damaging to the Conservatives in England and Wales.
People in England and Wales are told that they will lose their WFA but then they hear that Scottish millionaires will continue to receive it without anyone specifying how this will be paid for.
Losing money annoys people. Being discriminated against annoys people.
And those are what millions of people in England and Wales will feel because of this.
If Davidson said "we will increase tax X so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" or "we will reduce spending on Y so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" then much of the heat would have been taken out of the issue.
But without that many people in England and Wales will suspect that not only will they lose their own WFA but that they will have to pay extra taxes so that WFA can continue to be paid unrestricted in Scotland.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
For the Scots I would make the Winter Fuel Allowance taxable for those whose income exceeds the basic personal allowance if means testing is such a problem. The idea we have two different systems in place between those living in Berwick on Tweed and those living a few miles across the border in Kelso is still ridiculous but at least there would be a great sense of fairness at play.
@another_richard - agreed. Still, the Scottish government will have to find the money to pay for it if they do keep it. I think the perception that the English will pay for it is wrong due to Barnett.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
For the Scots I would make the Winter Fuel Allowance taxable for those whose income exceeds the basic personal allowance if means testing is such a problem. The idea we have two different systems in place between those living in Berwick on Tweed and those living a few miles across the border in Kelso is still ridiculous but at least there would be a great sense of fairness at play.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Of course most voters will back means testing of WFA as long as they dont realise that the means testing means that they themselves ( or parents/grandparents ) will lose it .
Except most of them won't, which is the whole reason of means testing it so millionaires don't get WFA
It depends on what the level of the means test is . To stop millionaires getting WFA will not save much . To save a decent amount it will need to be set somewhere in the £10K to £ 15K annual income range and that will hit plenty of people who do not consider themselves well off .
I can be on Labour in Brent Central at about 1/9 and in Leeds East at 1/6. These prices no longer make sense to me, though nobody'll become a millionaire at 1/6.
Nice place to put your spare money for a few weeks though.
@another_richard - agreed. Still, the Scottish government will have to find the money to pay for it if they do keep it. I think the perception that the English will pay for it is wrong due to Barnett.
Its a perception that is widely believed.
It is after all the basis of those EdM in Salmond's pocket imagery so successfully used by the Conservatives two years ago.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Yougov today had most UK voters backing means testing of WFA by 49% to 34%, Tories backed it by 63% to 27%, however Scots were split 41% to 41% (page 6). It seems the main people concerned
Of course most voters will back means testing of WFA as long as they dont realise that the means testing means that they themselves ( or parents/grandparents ) will lose it .
Except most of them won't, which is the whole reason of means testing it so millionaires don't get WFA
It depends on what the level of the means test is . To stop millionaires getting WFA will not save much . To save a decent amount it will need to be set somewhere in the £10K to £ 15K annual income range and that will hit plenty of people who do not consider themselves well off .
It will be targeted at well off pensioners ie annual income £50k-£100k+ and that will still save a fair sum, it will not be set as low as £15k annual income
Labour must be very pleased the crapness of the tory manifesto,the scrutiny taken away from labours manifesto inwhich any decent con team would have had a field day.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
For the Scots I would make the Winter Fuel Allowance taxable for those whose income exceeds the basic personal allowance if means testing is such a problem. The idea we have two different systems in place between those living in Berwick on Tweed and those living a few miles across the border in Kelso is still ridiculous but at least there would be a great sense of fairness at play.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
They are paraphrases.
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
The money will have to come from somewhere, because of the Barnett formula.
It will come out of Scotland's money, we pay dearly for crackpot Westminster rule.
I am just back from Turf Moor after a weekend up north. Watching this messageboard over the weekend was reminiscent of every major campaign I have witnessed on politicalbetting.com, there is a wobble for the leading side in the campaign and key supporters of that side go a little over the top.
Now I am not an expert on the social care policy or social care infrastructure more generally. I am pleased a major party is considering the topic and I can see some positives and negatives in the Conservative plan. I do accept it has not been a narrative success for the party; anything that can be labelled a 'dementia tax' and this label not be laughed out of court as ridiculous is clearly a challenge for the party in question. Speaking to some older voters myself over the weekend they were bemused and not comfortable with the social care policy. That said I don't think it would wobble their support for the Conservatives. The WFA changes and triple lock changes were less of a concern, there was an acceptance the existing systems cannot continue indefinitely.
More generally on the polls this weekend we must remember:
- Polls are snapshots not predictions. - On leadership, economic competence and Brexit the Conservatives lead on polling. - There are three weeks to go campaigning, I cannot see issues with social care dominating the media for that time period. I imagine the Conservatives will discuss consultation on the wider details of the social care plan and this will assist them in managing the narrative. - We seem to be on the verge of a return to two party politics. As such the gap between Conservatives/Labour is more important than their baseline voting figure. This gap has narrowed, but seemingly it is less a loss of Conservative support and more Labour gaining. - Next the Conservatives are being critiqued, yet still have a vote percentage higher than Blair/Thatcher achieved. Also I think the 20 point lead at the start of the campaign was never going to be maintained. People were not thinking politics then, moreover the chance of a Tory landslide will solidify tribal voters who don't like the Conservatives. Moreover, however bad Corbyn is (and he is) how often do you get a 20 point gap in UK politics? Especially for a governing party, 7 years in power? Blair didn't get that beating a tired government of 18 years.
Ultimately, regardless of the majority Mrs May gains (and I think it will be considerably higher than she has now) she gains two more years to manage Brexit, a likely larger majority, can jettison unrealistic tax promises, and begin to change the party's political position. Not bad.
In short. Conservative supporters should keep calm and carry on.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
For the Scots I would make the Winter Fuel Allowance taxable for those whose income exceeds the basic personal allowance if means testing is such a problem. The idea we have two different systems in place between those living in Berwick on Tweed and those living a few miles across the border in Kelso is still ridiculous but at least there would be a great sense of fairness at play.
Non eof your business unless you live in Scotland, I would tax people down south who earn more than £50K and distribute it to those earning minimum wage which is more equitable than your bollox..
WFA, yes I have been getting it for 2-3 years, I do not need it and happy to see it means tested, but we are still not sure what the means test will be. You can have my Christmas bonus as well. The care funding issue, again I am pleased someone has been brave enough to propose a solution.(It is a Sir Humphrey brave/courageous), I plan to spend or give away everything I have long before the Grim Reaper gets me, and if there is only £100K left for my Grandchildren well so what, I will have given them all I have before I die anyway, and had pleasure in the giving,Hopefully 7 years in advance. Others have commented that IHT is largely voluntary. I do recognise I am very lucky, I planned carefully, and am fortunate as a Boomer to have lived through possibly the best times ever, and others will not be so fortunate. I have only praise for the NHS, I am currently very fit and strong thanks to their help with a health problem.
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
They are paraphrases.
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
The money will have to come from somewhere, because of the Barnett formula.
This is why the imagery is damaging to the Conservatives in England and Wales.
People in England and Wales are told that they will lose their WFA but then they hear that Scottish millionaires will continue to receive it without anyone specifying how this will be paid for.
Losing money annoys people. Being discriminated against annoys people.
And those are what millions of people in England and Wales will feel because of this.
If Davidson said "we will increase tax X so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" or "we will reduce spending on Y so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" then much of the heat would have been taken out of the issue.
But without that many people in England and Wales will suspect that not only will they lose their own WFA but that they will have to pay extra taxes so that WFA can continue to be paid unrestricted in Scotland.
They would have to be extremely thick to think that then , given that the cut in England will mean a cut in Barnett , so once again Scotland will need to prop up the nasty party evil policies by using some of the meagre amount of our money we get back after they have filched large amounts of it.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
So you're predicting SCON MPs will be in double figurers.
That's one to remember.
It is a possibility on current Scottish polls yes, if they gain at least 9 and add them to the 1 they already have
You are definitely devoid of any clue about Scotland. You make Scott look like a genius.
It would be interesting to know what proportion of people actually undertand what May's social care policy is.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.
May I comment on the Social care policy is this per person or per couple. If you have a couple and one needs care but they jointly own the house will they be entitled to £100K each so a couple with a house worth £190K would have no fees to pay. Outside the bubble of London there are lots of homes worth this.Also in our case if one of us has to be admitted to a care home with dementia at the moment our fees would kick in at £23500 with this proposal it would be £100K, think I know what I would prefer.
All very well but how many will actually turnout on the day? Plenty of young people registered last time and not all voted
I wonder if some of the 'new' people registering to vote, are students that may already be registered to vote at there University address, but are now re-registering at their parents address because they are planning to be at that address on election day?
Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than than another. If you have cancer you have very expensive chemotherapy absolutely free. Without it you die. If you have dementia you get very expensive care. Without it you die. Can any Tory on here please tell me what's the difference between these 2 diseases?
Comments
Are you saying they aren't May's and Davidson's opinions on WFA ?
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/wvyc3lofp5/SundayTimesResults_170519_VI_W.pdf
I read a suggestion that Momentum wanted to get its members to sign up for polling panels, so they could show their support for the Great Leader. Now, I would hope that these pollsters would have a way of ensuring that wasn't possible. But just in case - be interesting to see if there was any noticeable difference in results if they only used people who had been on their panels for 2 years or more.
Of course there's a lot of inchoate fear and worry about elderly care out there already, and obviously a fair bit of ignorance about the existing not-very-good situation and rules. However in a stroke of absolute genius, Tessy and her mates have manage to center it all on their shiny, new proposal.
"In just a few months, we have created almost a million new jobs, added over $3 trillion in new value".
Has anyone got an idea what he is talking about? US GDP is about $18tn per year. He has been in office for four months. The value created during that period will have been about $6tn. What does he mean by "new"?
People in England and Wales are told that they will lose their WFA but then they hear that Scottish millionaires will continue to receive it without anyone specifying how this will be paid for.
Losing money annoys people.
Being discriminated against annoys people.
And those are what millions of people in England and Wales will feel because of this.
If Davidson said "we will increase tax X so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" or "we will reduce spending on Y so that all Scottish pensioners can continue to receive WFA" then much of the heat would have been taken out of the issue.
But without that many people in England and Wales will suspect that not only will they lose their own WFA but that they will have to pay extra taxes so that WFA can continue to be paid unrestricted in Scotland.
We've been passing like ships in the night lately...
I noticed I displeased you on this mornings thread. Soz!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39987278
It is after all the basis of those EdM in Salmond's pocket imagery so successfully used by the Conservatives two years ago.
I am just back from Turf Moor after a weekend up north. Watching this messageboard over the weekend was reminiscent of every major campaign I have witnessed on politicalbetting.com, there is a wobble for the leading side in the campaign and key supporters of that side go a little over the top.
Now I am not an expert on the social care policy or social care infrastructure more generally. I am pleased a major party is considering the topic and I can see some positives and negatives in the Conservative plan. I do accept it has not been a narrative success for the party; anything that can be labelled a 'dementia tax' and this label not be laughed out of court as ridiculous is clearly a challenge for the party in question. Speaking to some older voters myself over the weekend they were bemused and not comfortable with the social care policy. That said I don't think it would wobble their support for the Conservatives. The WFA changes and triple lock changes were less of a concern, there was an acceptance the existing systems cannot continue indefinitely.
More generally on the polls this weekend we must remember:
- Polls are snapshots not predictions.
- On leadership, economic competence and Brexit the Conservatives lead on polling.
- There are three weeks to go campaigning, I cannot see issues with social care dominating the media for that time period. I imagine the Conservatives will discuss consultation on the wider details of the social care plan and this will assist them in managing the narrative.
- We seem to be on the verge of a return to two party politics. As such the gap between Conservatives/Labour is more important than their baseline voting figure. This gap has narrowed, but seemingly it is less a loss of Conservative support and more Labour gaining.
- Next the Conservatives are being critiqued, yet still have a vote percentage higher than Blair/Thatcher achieved. Also I think the 20 point lead at the start of the campaign was never going to be maintained. People were not thinking politics then, moreover the chance of a Tory landslide will solidify tribal voters who don't like the Conservatives. Moreover, however bad Corbyn is (and he is) how often do you get a 20 point gap in UK politics? Especially for a governing party, 7 years in power? Blair didn't get that beating a tired government of 18 years.
Ultimately, regardless of the majority Mrs May gains (and I think it will be considerably higher than she has now) she gains two more years to manage Brexit, a likely larger majority, can jettison unrealistic tax promises, and begin to change the party's political position. Not bad.
In short. Conservative supporters should keep calm and carry on.
The care funding issue, again I am pleased someone has been brave enough to propose a solution.(It is a Sir Humphrey brave/courageous), I plan to spend or give away everything I have long before the Grim Reaper gets me, and if there is only £100K left for my Grandchildren well so what, I will have given them all I have before I die anyway, and had pleasure in the giving,Hopefully 7 years in advance. Others have commented that IHT is largely voluntary.
I do recognise I am very lucky, I planned carefully, and am fortunate as a Boomer to have lived through possibly the best times ever, and others will not be so fortunate.
I have only praise for the NHS, I am currently very fit and strong thanks to their help with a health problem.
Listening to a few radio news reports today it sounded as if you will only be left with £100k if you need care - ie you would only be allowed to keep £100k irrespective of how much care you need.
It didn't actuially say that if you have a £300k house you would only keep £100k if your care bill is £200k.
The above may sound blindingly obvious to people on here but not necessarily to someone just hearing brief news headlines.
So I suspect the biggest problem for May is that people are now fearing a far, far worse financial outcome than is remotely likely given their own actual circumstances.
And the above is before even considering that the existing position for residential care is even worse - again something most people won't have had a clue about.