My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
It's a fair point. But it's been this way since 1992 at least.
Edit: Presumably this has developed over time because in the old days the number of people who lived long enough for dementia to take hold was relatively low.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery. The Care Act 2014 further extended the powers to recover from relatives if money or property has been passed on for this reason. Proving it is of course another matter, but there have been cases. And of course the majority of folk would find the risk and being on the wrong side of the law sufficient disincentive. Google Deprivation of Assets. And, unlike for tax, there is no seven year limit.
I doubt that there would be many attempts to enforce it. I used to work in an area where the concept of deprivation existed but was rarely applied. The people concerned really needed to be edge cases to be challenged.
You are right that it is not common, but there have been cases going back many years. For example. Yule v South Lanarkshire Council [1999] 1 CCLR 546 sets out in law the ability of local authorities to go as far back as they wish on asset disposals. Derbyshire CC v Akrill [2005] EWCA Civ 308 confirmed Courts have the power to ‘restore the position to a point which would have been the case had the *gift* (or transfer) had not been made. Councils powers have since been strengthened by the Care Act 2014.
Bearing in mind the new policy would potentially quadruple the number of people affected (less so in practice, as some won't have £100k), and those getting care at home are probably in a better position and mental state to consider rearranging their finances than someone going straight into residential care, the number of such cases will surely increase.
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
Do we have a lot of YouGov panel members on PB? I've certainly noticed one or two people who seem to have been interviewed multiple times.
Makes you wonder about their veracity. I'm not convinced regardless. Their figures appear to pitch up and down like a ship on a stormy sea. And I'm still not convinced that Labour are doing as well as the mid-30s, regardless.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery. The Care Act 2014 further extended the powers to recover from relatives if money or property has been passed on for this reason. Proving it is of course another matter, but there have been cases. And of course the majority of folk would find the risk and being on the wrong side of the law sufficient disincentive. Google Deprivation of Assets. And, unlike for tax, there is no seven year limit.
I doubt that there would be many attempts to enforce it. I used to work in an area where the concept of deprivation existed but was rarely applied. The people concerned really needed to be edge cases to be challenged.
Yes, if a couple sell their four bed house and buy a bungalow well before they need care, that's fair. If they they do the same after a medical diagnosis then try and plead poverty when they've just given a large pile of cash to their children... it's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion.
My Nan had to move into a home, and her estate was totally cleaned out save for about 10k me and my brother got between us and a small bit to my parents I think.
Care home fees demolish your lives' hard work. That said the tax is a massive blunder. Thankfully Corbyn and the IRA seem to have jumped to BBC most read...
I think Dianne's comment is far more damaging:
[Ireland] is our struggle — every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us. A defeat in Northern Ireland would be a defeat indeed.
"Every defeat of the British state is a victory for all of us" She actually said that, word for word?
Oh dear. If we can't get them for being fans of the IRA specifically, let's just get them for hating Britain generally.
Exactly, that is the real point. Anyone who hates the UK, "the West", our liberal values, whatever, is worthy of support no matter how demented, violent, evil or crazy. Just hating us is enough. IRA, Hamas, Iran, it really doesn't matter. The bottom line is they hate this country and everything it stands for. So they should just fuck off.
Whereas being in favour of policies to make disabled people's suffering worse in order to make the 1% richer proves you love this country
There is no moral equivalence between a policy disagreement on the best way to do "x" and supporting people who were blowing us up randomly in pubs.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
It's the difference between treatment and care.
If the NHS can treat you, they will try. But if they cannot and you just need care, then it is not their responsibility.
That's how it is right now. Not sure why you are trying to blame the Tories over it.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
Not so. If you are receiving care at home, it makes no odds what you are suffering from. Equally if expensive treatments for dementia become available, they will be absolutely free (subject to getting past NICE) just as chemo for cancer is.
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
Do we have a lot of YouGov panel members on PB? I've certainly noticed one or two people who seem to have been interviewed multiple times.
Makes you wonder about their veracity. I'm not convinced regardless. Their figures appear to pitch up and down like a ship on a stormy sea. And I'm still not convinced that Labour are doing as well as the mid-30s, regardless.
Yes, I'm part of the YouGov panel, as well as Populus and Opinium.
I also used to regularly get polled by Survation, but that was because I was in the most polled constituency of 2015.
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
That is always a sensible thing to do if they are unmarried living at home. Unfortunately not all families do it and I know of an instance where adult children were badly stung for IHT
People seem to care more about their sick parents' houses today than the intricacies of a hard-to-understand overseas conflict 40 years ago.
Yes, Birmingham and the City of London are very much overseas, Enniskillen is overseas from the POV of every single citizen of the UK, 1993 was 40 years ago, and when you say "hard-to-understand" I think you are projecting.
STanding firm is correct now I think. A U-turn would have just lead to "Well how is social care going to be paid for then" to which there are no easy answers. Maybe some of the old "prepared to take hard decisions" polling booth swing...
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
The state treats people differently according to where they receive their care, Chris.
The welfare benefits retained by someone who stays at home far exceed those of a person in need who is admitted to hospital, residential care or a nursing home.
There is an unasked question in this debate - if we add hundreds of pounds a week to someone's welfare payments due to conditions, what is the purpose?
I always assumed that it was to fund care among other things.
The real reason why you should not get rid of your assets is that the system is evolving into a two tier system.
Those who can afford to pay privately will be in high quality care homes, those who cannot will be in very basic care homes.
It is heading that way already.
After all, the rich & upper middle classes could get their children educated at state schools for nothing. They don’t -- they pay more money because there are tangible benefits such as lower class sizes in the independent sector.
Far more likely than the rich and upper middle classes gaming the system -- as surbiton alleges -- is that they will use their wealth to avoid the basic care homes entirely.
There will be cheap homes in which those with little or no assets will be placed by the Council. They will be pretty sad places (I have seen some very sad places).
And then there will be high-quality homes, where the higher fees provide much more care and stimulus for the residents.
This kind of apartheid is always what happens when public services are not properly resourced.
And as noone seems to know how to fund the social care system properly, this is what is likely to happen.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Putting the children's names on the house?
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery. The Care Act 2014 further extended the powers to recover from relatives if money or property has been passed on for this reason. Proving it is of course another matter, but there have been cases. And of course the majority of folk would find the risk and being on the wrong side of the law sufficient disincentive. Google Deprivation of Assets. And, unlike for tax, there is no seven year limit.
I doubt that there would be many attempts to enforce it. I used to work in an area where the concept of deprivation existed but was rarely applied. The people concerned really needed to be edge cases to be challenged.
You are right that it is not common, but there have been cases going back many years. For example. Yule v South Lanarkshire Council [1999] 1 CCLR 546 sets out in law the ability of local authorities to go as far back as they wish on asset disposals. Derbyshire CC v Akrill [2005] EWCA Civ 308 confirmed Courts have the power to ‘restore the position to a point which would have been the case had the *gift* (or transfer) had not been made. Councils powers have since been strengthened by the Care Act 2014.
Bearing in mind the new policy would potentially quadruple the number of people affected (less so in practice, as some won't have £100k), and those getting care at home are probably in a better position and mental state to consider rearranging their finances than someone going straight into residential care, the number of such cases will surely increase.
Yes but no Council would have a hope of proving deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid care in Court if you downsized 5 to 10 years before you needed care and transferred the assets from the sale to your children with no signs of dementia at all
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
Depends how canny the Yougov Corbynistas have been - how many of them have lied that they voted Tory/Ukip at the last election?
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
I've been on you gov panel for years. I have been surveyed umpteen times since the GE was called.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
The state treats people differently according to where they receive their care, Chris.
The welfare benefits retained by someone who stays at home far exceed those of a person in need who is admitted to hospital, residential care or a nursing home.
There is an unasked question in this debate - if we add hundreds of pounds a week to someone's welfare payments due to conditions, what is the purpose?
I always assumed that it was to fund care among other things.
It's more fundamental than that. Treatment for health conditions is managed by the NHS and funded by the government such that, subject to rationing (as can happen with the chemo example used downthread), it is provided free to everyone. Social care is managed by local authorities and funded by them (from council tax and government grant) subject to means testing rules such that many people have to pay part or all of the costs themselves.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
I'm not a Tory, but I am going to vote for them. And I'll try to help.
Social care falls into the same category as opticians services, prescription medicines or dentistry - something that you could argue should've been fully incorporated into the NHS as free at the point of use, but wasn't.
Now, in view of the growing social care problem, we have two options: level social care, as with the NHS model, and pay for it for everyone. Or means test it. The Government has opted for the latter.
Their approach is simply based on economics and equity. We don't have a bottomless pit of money to fund state services - those already provided, especially the NHS, are very expensive as it is.
The Government appears, therefore, to take the attitude that the state can't afford to do everything, and that better off people should pay a share towards their own care expenses.
The approach is unpopular but, IMHO, correct. May appears to advocate a more interventionist state than her recent Tory predecessors, but not an all-encompassing one. We can't afford it.
Those who object to the use of some housing wealth to pay for the care of well-off homeowners have a duty to explain to poorer taxpayers (a) why it is that savings should be taken into account when calculating care costs, yet property values remain exempt; and (b) why it is that the general taxpayer, including poorer people who neither own property themselves nor can expect to inherit it from others, should be expected to guarantee the inheritances of the families of the wealthy.
If people have to shell out bucketloads of money for home help then one might argue that this is unfair, given that others won't have to - but life's a bitch, ain't it? Bad things happen to people. Homeowners in that position will have a floor put under their wealth, so they won't lose everything and can still pass on a decent inheritance, and they won't be made to give up their homes whilst they live.
You can argue that this policy might've been constructed differently - perhaps placing a ceiling on peoples' expected care contributions, rather than a floor - but the principle itself is sound. The Government can't afford infinite provision for its people, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. If social care isn't to be made free and universal, with the attendant consequences in terms of increasing the tax burden, then at least some people will have to pay something towards their care. The Government's proposals seem like a not unreasonable compromise.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
Hypothetically if you really are unemployed and cannot afford the rent for private accommodation and have years to wait to get social housing and your parents die having needed lots of expensive care and having not downsized years in advance and just leave you the £100k they were left with, rather than being homeless just use the £100k to buy a caravan or flat in Skegness until you get back on your feet!
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
I didn't mean you by "you". Sadly the use of "one" is depreciated.
The government proposals actually protect the reader in this scenario more than the current system.
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
The lack of SNP activity and enthusiasm is hugely different to 2015 or even 2016. The final result will hinge hugely on the turnout of their supporters. The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play. Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
I'm not a Tory, but I am going to vote for them. And I'll try to help.
Social care falls into the same category as optometry or dentistry - something that you could argue should've been incorporated into the NHS but never was.
Now, in view of the growing social care problem, we have two options: level social care, as with the NHS model, and pay for it for everyone. Or means test it. The Government has opted for the latter.
Their approach is simply based on economics and equity. We don't have a bottomless pit of money to fund state services - those already provided, especially the NHS, are very expensive as it is.
The Government appears, therefore, to take the attitude that the state can't afford to do everything, and that better off people should therefore pay a share towards their own care expenses.
The approach is unpopular but, IMHO, correct. May appears to advocate a more interventionist state than her recent Tory predecessors, but not an all-encompassing one. We can't afford it.
Those who object to the use of some housing wealth to pay for the care of well-off homeowners have a duty to explain to poorer taxpayers (a) why it is that savings should be taken into account when calculating care costs, yet property values remain exempt; and (b) why it is that the general taxpayer, inclume people will have to pay something towards their care. The Government's proposals seem like a not unreasonable compromise.
Not A Tories who vote Tory are part of the rich tradition of PB.
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
I've been on you gov panel for years. I have been surveyed umpteen times since the GE was called.
Then stop giving random answers and we may get some sensible polls!
Just seen this collection of election addresses from Scotland. Gordon Brown's inflated opinion of his qualities was a warning for the future. It is distinctly odd.
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
Depends how canny the Yougov Corbynistas have been - how many of them have lied that they voted Tory/Ukip at the last election?
Did this YouGov Wales poll on Friday. No wonder results astounding.Perhaps I was only one surveyed. #wales labour
Sometimes I honestly wonder about Yougov's panel effect. I think we're all desperately oversurveyed on here.
There were rumours a few months back of the Corbynista keyboard warriors being encouraged to sign up with polling companies. Are the pollsters about to have another nightmare election?
I've been on you gov panel for years. I have been surveyed umpteen times since the GE was called.
Then stop giving random answers and we may get some sensible polls!
I have had 2 VI Yougov surveys so far this GE .......... and 6 TV viewing habit surveys .
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, what does it have to do with them?
If you do it before any diagnosis, what grounds are there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery..
e.
Yes but no Council would have a hope of proving deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid care in Court if you downsized 5 to 10 years before you needed care and transferred the assets from the sale to your children with no signs of dementia at all
Probably so. But how many people are going to downsize or pass their home on well ahead of time? The (general) risks are:
- The person who receives your gift may die or run into financial difficulties. If you are still living in the property, you may find yourself homeless. - The value of the assets you transferred may be still taken into account when performing a means test - Your remaining assets may be used up entirely to pay for care (because you are deemed to still own the asset, even though you gave it away). - Once your remaining assets are used up, the Local Authority can take enforcement action in respect of ongoing care fees. This might include action in the Magistrates Court, imposing a charge on the property (even though it is no longer in your name) or even reversing the transfer. This could be protracted, expensive and stressful. - The Local Authority may choose to provide only a basic level of care, leaving you to fund the rest. The person who received your gift may not be willing to contribute. This can result in a breakdown of relationship between you and the person you gifted your property too. It can also mean you don’t get the level of care that you need. - The person you gift the property to may lose their entitlement to benefits or services based on means testing. - Note also that if you transfer your home but continue to live in it, you will not avoid inheritance tax (if this is one of your intentions). This is known as a ‘gift with reservation of benefit’.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
It's the difference between treatment and care.
If the NHS can treat you, they will try. But if they cannot and you just need care, then it is not their responsibility.
That's how it is right now. Not sure why you are trying to blame the Tories over it.
Both are treatment. Much chemotherapy will not cure you. It will palliate your symptoms and extend your life. Any difference is sophistry. Why am I blaming the Tories? Well they've had the Dilnott commission and ignored it.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
It's the difference between treatment and care.
If the NHS can treat you, they will try. But if they cannot and you just need care, then it is not their responsibility.
That's how it is right now. Not sure why you are trying to blame the Tories over it.
Both are treatment. Much chemotherapy will not cure you. It will palliate your symptoms and extend your life. Any difference is sophistry. Why am I blaming the Tories? Well they've had the Dilnott commission and ignored it.
It was a Coalition Govt that set up Dilnot, and the findings were delivered in 2011.
Rubbish. What is disgusting is the policy. Odd sort of policy that makes us want to go down with one disease rather than the other. 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?
It's the difference between treatment and care.
If the NHS can treat you, they will try. But if they cannot and you just need care, then it is not their responsibility.
That's how it is right now. Not sure why you are trying to blame the Tories over it.
Both are treatment. Much chemotherapy will not cure you. It will palliate your symptoms and extend your life. Any difference is sophistry. Why am I blaming the Tories? Well they've had the Dilnott commission and ignored it.
True, on the latter point. The problem of course is the massive cost. On the former however there is a difference between a time-limited (and funding-limited) intervention to change someone's circumstances, and an ongoing indefinite intervention to enable them to cope with unchanging (or deteriorating) circumstance. Not to mention that the two services are provided by different bodies and funded in different ways.
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
The lack of SNP activity and enthusiasm is hugely different to 2015 or even 2016. The final result will hinge hugely on the turnout of their supporters. The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play. Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
We are seeing the same in Birkhill. Dundee West is absolutely safe but it is curious that the SNP seem to be making less effort than parties without a prayer.
I do think the SNP will struggle to get their supporters out in anything like the same numbers this time. In some seats if the Unionists just hold their vote the seat will come to them. But the scale of the majorities that the SNP got in 2015 is so high that the vast majority of seats are just not in play. North Perthshire is an interesting case in point.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
You mean like me? With a disabled son who will never move out and who will be homeless if this happens to me in my old age. Yeah. It's a real worry.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
You mean like me? With a disabled son who will never move out and who will be homeless if this happens to me in my old age. Yeah. It's a real worry.
You can still get plenty of 1 bed properties in much of the country for under £100k
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
The lack of SNP activity and enthusiasm is hugely different to 2015 or even 2016. The final result will hinge hugely on the turnout of their supporters. The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play. Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
We are seeing the same in Birkhill. Dundee West is absolutely safe but it is curious that the SNP seem to be making less effort than parties without a prayer.
I do think the SNP will struggle to get their supporters out in anything like the same numbers this time. In some seats if the Unionists just hold their vote the seat will come to them. But the scale of the majorities that the SNP got in 2015 is so high that the vast majority of seats are just not in play. North Perthshire is an interesting case in point.
Are you telling me Labour supporters actually vote Tory ? Ugh !!!!!
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
You mean like me? With a disabled son who will never move out and who will be homeless if this happens to me in my old age. Yeah. It's a real worry.
That's the sort of thing my mother was worried about, we have some family friends who have an autistic son who has all sorts of secondary issues, who cannot leave the house unless for more than a few hours.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
As a supporter of the principle of the social care reforms, my mother does have one question.
With more and more children unable to afford mortgages, we could see people living with their parents whilst they were living in the 40s etc, how would the 'dementia tax' work in that instance, would it effectively make people homeless?
Or am I missing something really obvious.
That's a very good question. Does it not simply emphasise the massive overvaluation of the nation's housing stock in general ?
It does. Houses are way too overvalued.
And I say that as someone who bought a house in London in 2000 and sold it several years later.
You're living in your parents' home. If they require care then the equity in the house can be used to fund that care, although they couldn't force a sale. The time you would be homeless is upon your parent's death, which is the case already.
I'll be fine, these proposals won't really impact me for several reasons.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
You mean like me? With a disabled son who will never move out and who will be homeless if this happens to me in my old age. Yeah. It's a real worry.
Is it not the case that people with disabled children will be exempt? Sure I read that somewhere.
People who say they are "happy to pay more tax" tend to go quiet when it's pointed out that the Revenue accept donations.
Perhaps this should be the same? Offer them the chance to keep the current £23k arrangements if they prefer.
If people looked into it properly they'd soon opt for the new version.
That depends. Care provided in the home is three times as common as residential care, and the trend is strongly towards doing more to support people in their homes for as long as possible, for good as well as purely financial reasons. Many people will have an extended period of home care followed by a shorter period of residential. With rising life expectancy it's a fine cost/benefit equation which policy is "better" in financial terms. Many better off people will start with income and capital well above the limits and so it is academic whether it's 23k or 100k because they will die before either is reached. Many poorer people will get free care from day one either way. And of course there will be lots of people in the middle; how the new policy affects them will depend on which type(s) of care they need and for how long. And on the balance between property and other assets.
The bottom line is that the government needs to contain the costs of care overall. And so I would assume that someone has already worked out that the revised policy saves money?
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
The lack of SNP activity and enthusiasm is hugely different to 2015 or even 2016. The final result will hinge hugely on the turnout of their supporters. The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play. Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
We are seeing the same in Birkhill. Dundee West is absolutely safe but it is curious that the SNP seem to be making less effort than parties without a prayer.
I do think the SNP will struggle to get their supporters out in anything like the same numbers this time. In some seats if the Unionists just hold their vote the seat will come to them. But the scale of the majorities that the SNP got in 2015 is so high that the vast majority of seats are just not in play. North Perthshire is an interesting case in point.
Are you telling me Labour supporters actually vote Tory ? Ugh !!!!!
Some are but a former Labour MP was telling me last week that he would rather have an SNP MP than a Tory so it is not yet universal.
Not A Tories who vote Tory are part of the rich tradition of PB.
???
Well, if you say so.
FWIW, at GE2015 I voted Liberal Democrat.
I know. Odd. That's me.
Presumably tactically. Your posts does not feel like a Liberal Democrat.
No. I felt sorry for them, actually. The Lib Dems were unfairly maligned for daring to enter coalition, and I decided to lend them my support. I also had a particular personal reason for not backing the Conservatives.
All that said, this constituency is ultra-safe Tory, and the eventual winner is a foregone conclusion in any event.
This time I will vote Conservative, mainly because I objected to the Lib Dem reaction towards Brexit. It's one thing to say, on principle, "This is a bad idea. We'd rather it didn't happen." Quite another to instinctively react, as they initially did, by saying "We think the vote went the wrong way, so we're going to try to obstruct it." Not a good look.
Both are treatment. Much chemotherapy will not cure you. It will palliate your symptoms and extend your life. Any difference is sophistry. Why am I blaming the Tories? Well they've had the Dilnott commission and ignored it.
It was a Coalition Govt that set up Dilnot, and the findings were delivered in 2011.
Which was 85% Tory. Typical Tory attitude - take credit for some things (personal allowance) and blame LibDems for the rest.
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
The Echo is slightly better looking, and interacts with my Hive heating (Alexa, turn the heating on! - brilliant). But the less interactive Google Home is cleverer at answering questions (Google, Who is S K Tremayne? - that's the author of the Ice Twins, also known as Tom Knox).
Both are flawed, both are fun to use. Both feel like you are staring into the future. Science fiction come to life. It reminds me of the first time I used an iPad, which felt magical, and these gizmos have much more potential. They will soon be ubiquitous and will run our lives.
So it's a score draw for the home assistants, and a huge win for TechnoWow.
Some are but a former Labour MP was telling me last week that he would rather have an SNP MP than a Tory so it is not yet universal.
In the council elections, didn't Labour voters' transfer votes split fairly evenly between the SNP and Tories? Whereas most Tory transfer votes went overwhelmingly to Labour. Hence why Labour came quite close to the Tories on councillor numbers, even though the Tories had a pretty healthy lead over them in terms of first-preference votes.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Our friend Mr Neil is surely working out his questions on this subject as we speak. So she has a very early opportunity.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Has anyone taken a punt on the Tories getting most votes in Scotland?
No one sane.
I wouldn't go near that bet. Tories are still slightly toxic, from the Thatcher era.
However, what's the view of the SNP seat bands; any value in them?
On my thread piece I was at 48. I think I still am but I am getting slightly more twitchy. I hear from friends that the Lib Dems are very confident in Edinburgh West. Nothing like the level of SNP activity or enthusiasm that there was 2 years ago. OTOH the resilience of SLAB, despite being good for the Union, is probably not great for the Tories getting tactical support where they need it.
The Scottish election this time is truly fascinating.
The lack of SNP activity and enthusiasm is hugely different to 2015 or even 2016. The final result will hinge hugely on the turnout of their supporters. The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play. Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
We are seeing the same in Birkhill. Dundee West is absolutely safe but it is curious that the SNP seem to be making less effort than parties without a prayer.
I do think the SNP will struggle to get their supporters out in anything like the same numbers this time. In some seats if the Unionists just hold their vote the seat will come to them. But the scale of the majorities that the SNP got in 2015 is so high that the vast majority of seats are just not in play. North Perthshire is an interesting case in point.
Are you telling me Labour supporters actually vote Tory ? Ugh !!!!!
There are Tories who vote Labour or Libdem depending on the seat and visa versa. In the North, East and along the Borders there is a quite a lot of tactical voting. In the Central belt west of Edinburgh and especially around Glasgow there is much less. There the dislike of the Tories is still greater than the dislike of the SNP.
As a supporter of the principle of the social obvious.
Then the children become liable for the care costs.
Why? If they own a share, whatare there for 'deprivation'?
It's been the law for some time that you can't avoid liability for residential care costs by passing on property to your heirs in advance of death, and councils have long had powers of recovery..
e.
Yes but no Council would have a hope of proving deliberate deprivation of assets to avoid care in Court if you downsized 5 to 10 years before you needed care and transferred the assets from the sale to your children with no signs of dementia at all
Probably so. But how many people are going to downsize or pass their home on well ahead of timethe level of care that you need. - The person you gift the property to may lose their entitlement to benefits or services based on means testing. - Note also that if you transfer your home but continue to live in it, you will not avoid inheritance tax (if this is one of your intentions). This is known as a ‘gift with reservation of benefit’.
-That is their problem, you gave them the assets how they use them is up to the, you will of course have downsized to another property. -Not if they were transferred years before you needed care. -If your assets were transferred years before care was needed they cannot be assessed for care and your remaining assets will only be assessed up to £100k -None of that applies to assets transferred years before you needed care, the LA has now power to issue any enforcement action in respect of them -If you are reliant on the LA level of care that would be the case if you were down to your last £100k too but you would still get care -If the person you transferred it to loses entitlement to benefits or services because of the transfer then there is no point making the transfer unless it is substantial -The presumption is you have sold the property and given the proceeds to your children not that you continue to live there and from 2020 inheritance tax will effectively have been abolished for all estates under £1 million value
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Nope. (But I hand-delivered a letter there for my then boss in 1983. Nearest I have ever been....)
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Our friend Mr Neil is surely working out his questions on this subject as we speak. So she has a very early opportunity.
I hope we have taken the opportunity to wish Andrew Neil a Happy Birthday already today?
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
Google showed a huge amount of cool stuff related to Assistant at I/O last week, Alexa is getting better all the time, and Microsoft's Cortana has a lot of stuff coming down the pipe. Apple's Siri on the other hand has barely improved since release. Apple really struggles to build competitive internet services. Maybe they will show something amazing at WWDC, but people always say that and each year nothing much happens.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Nope. (But I hand-delivered a letter there for my then boss in 1983. Nearest I have ever been....)
That building is now "Europe House" - the London base of the European Parliament. So the Tories will have the chance to move back in sometime soon, if they are interested.....
Comments
The Cat Protection League will be after Crosby.
It must have been v difficult to tell that story without using the words 'Muslim' or 'islam' too, but I think they managed it
Edit: Presumably this has developed over time because in the old days the number of people who lived long enough for dementia to take hold was relatively low.
Bearing in mind the new policy would potentially quadruple the number of people affected (less so in practice, as some won't have £100k), and those getting care at home are probably in a better position and mental state to consider rearranging their finances than someone going straight into residential care, the number of such cases will surely increase.
#fakenews
Makes you wonder about their veracity. I'm not convinced regardless. Their figures appear to pitch up and down like a ship on a stormy sea. And I'm still not convinced that Labour are doing as well as the mid-30s, regardless.
And I think it will be much closer than 2015.
It's the difference between treatment and care.
If the NHS can treat you, they will try. But if they cannot and you just need care, then it is not their responsibility.
That's how it is right now. Not sure why you are trying to blame the Tories over it.
I also used to regularly get polled by Survation, but that was because I was in the most polled constituency of 2015.
Maybe some of the old "prepared to take hard decisions" polling booth swing...
Central office had better watch out for industrial injury claims - all that clicking could lead to repetitive strain injury.
The welfare benefits retained by someone who stays at home far exceed those of a person in need who is admitted to hospital, residential care or a nursing home.
There is an unasked question in this debate - if we add hundreds of pounds a week to someone's welfare payments due to conditions, what is the purpose?
I always assumed that it was to fund care among other things.
Those who can afford to pay privately will be in high quality care homes, those who cannot will be in very basic care homes.
It is heading that way already.
After all, the rich & upper middle classes could get their children educated at state schools for nothing. They don’t -- they pay more money because there are tangible benefits such as lower class sizes in the independent sector.
Far more likely than the rich and upper middle classes gaming the system -- as surbiton alleges -- is that they will use their wealth to avoid the basic care homes entirely.
There will be cheap homes in which those with little or no assets will be placed by the Council. They will be pretty sad places (I have seen some very sad places).
And then there will be high-quality homes, where the higher fees provide much more care and stimulus for the residents.
This kind of apartheid is always what happens when public services are not properly resourced.
And as noone seems to know how to fund the social care system properly, this is what is likely to happen.
I was just wondering about those families less fortunate than me.
Appalling things happened to these girls and many like them.
Social care falls into the same category as opticians services, prescription medicines or dentistry - something that you could argue should've been fully incorporated into the NHS as free at the point of use, but wasn't.
Now, in view of the growing social care problem, we have two options: level social care, as with the NHS model, and pay for it for everyone. Or means test it. The Government has opted for the latter.
Their approach is simply based on economics and equity. We don't have a bottomless pit of money to fund state services - those already provided, especially the NHS, are very expensive as it is.
The Government appears, therefore, to take the attitude that the state can't afford to do everything, and that better off people should pay a share towards their own care expenses.
The approach is unpopular but, IMHO, correct. May appears to advocate a more interventionist state than her recent Tory predecessors, but not an all-encompassing one. We can't afford it.
Those who object to the use of some housing wealth to pay for the care of well-off homeowners have a duty to explain to poorer taxpayers (a) why it is that savings should be taken into account when calculating care costs, yet property values remain exempt; and (b) why it is that the general taxpayer, including poorer people who neither own property themselves nor can expect to inherit it from others, should be expected to guarantee the inheritances of the families of the wealthy.
If people have to shell out bucketloads of money for home help then one might argue that this is unfair, given that others won't have to - but life's a bitch, ain't it? Bad things happen to people. Homeowners in that position will have a floor put under their wealth, so they won't lose everything and can still pass on a decent inheritance, and they won't be made to give up their homes whilst they live.
You can argue that this policy might've been constructed differently - perhaps placing a ceiling on peoples' expected care contributions, rather than a floor - but the principle itself is sound. The Government can't afford infinite provision for its people, and lines have to be drawn somewhere. If social care isn't to be made free and universal, with the attendant consequences in terms of increasing the tax burden, then at least some people will have to pay something towards their care. The Government's proposals seem like a not unreasonable compromise.
OR
Evil Terrorist-Loving Labour?
The government proposals actually protect the reader in this scenario more than the current system.
The turnout in Scotland in 2015 was 71% last time and I would suggest a lower turnout of any significant amount may well be a sign a poorer night ahead for the SNP. At the moment any seat where they have 50% of the vote last time is safe but a lower turnout could bring those seats where they were in the range 45-50% last time into play.
Where I stay is in a ward where 2 out of 3 councillors are SNP and is usually has a number of SNP posters up. At the moment the only ones I have seen are the ones that are up permanently. Also yet to receive any literature from them but have got 2 bits from the Tories and considering that I could be seeing the back of Pete Wishart as my MP in a couple of weeks the lack of effort so far is a little surprising.
Then stop giving random answers and we may get some sensible polls!
Carlotta's absence from the site tonight is a dead giveaway.
https://twitter.com/davidtorrance/status/866338432284590080/photo/1
Well, if you say so.
FWIW, at GE2015 I voted Liberal Democrat.
I know. Odd. That's me.
- The person who receives your gift may die or run into financial difficulties. If you are still living in the property, you may find yourself homeless.
- The value of the assets you transferred may be still taken into account when performing a means test
- Your remaining assets may be used up entirely to pay for care (because you are deemed to still own the asset, even though you gave it away).
- Once your remaining assets are used up, the Local Authority can take enforcement action in respect of ongoing care fees. This might include action in the Magistrates Court, imposing a charge on the property (even though it is no longer in your name) or even reversing the transfer. This could be protracted, expensive and stressful.
- The Local Authority may choose to provide only a basic level of care, leaving you to fund the rest. The person who received your gift may not be willing to contribute. This can result in a breakdown of relationship between you and the person you gifted your property too. It can also mean you don’t get the level of care that you need.
- The person you gift the property to may lose their entitlement to benefits or services based on means testing.
- Note also that if you transfer your home but continue to live in it, you will not avoid inheritance tax (if this is one of your intentions). This is known as a ‘gift with reservation of benefit’.
No qualms from me though, as there is a constant flow of comedy from these nutters...
Perhaps this should be the same? Offer them the chance to keep the current £23k arrangements if they prefer.
If people looked into it properly they'd soon opt for the new version.
A. $110 billion.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/866394918125809664
I do think the SNP will struggle to get their supporters out in anything like the same numbers this time. In some seats if the Unionists just hold their vote the seat will come to them. But the scale of the majorities that the SNP got in 2015 is so high that the vast majority of seats are just not in play. North Perthshire is an interesting case in point.
With a disabled son who will never move out and who will be homeless if this happens to me in my old age.
Yeah. It's a real worry.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
A nurse in the audience took Nicola to task for that fact she has to use a foodbank.
The SNP response?
"Nurses are paid enough, and the woman is a plant married to a Tory councillor"
Neither of these statements are true...
The bottom line is that the government needs to contain the costs of care overall. And so I would assume that someone has already worked out that the revised policy saves money?
https://twitter.com/mailonline/status/866395941091385346
All that said, this constituency is ultra-safe Tory, and the eventual winner is a foregone conclusion in any event.
This time I will vote Conservative, mainly because I objected to the Lib Dem reaction towards Brexit. It's one thing to say, on principle, "This is a bad idea. We'd rather it didn't happen." Quite another to instinctively react, as they initially did, by saying "We think the vote went the wrong way, so we're going to try to obstruct it." Not a good look.
It was a Coalition Govt that set up Dilnot. It reported in 2011.
The policy towards dementia sufferers is not a Tory policy, because it has been the policy for decades.
It was a New Labour Policy, then a Coalition Policy than a Tory Policy..
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
(Which probably means she never forgets anything bad you have done in your life....)
-Not if they were transferred years before you needed care.
-If your assets were transferred years before care was needed they cannot be assessed for care and your remaining assets will only be assessed up to £100k
-None of that applies to assets transferred years before you needed care, the LA has now power to issue any enforcement action in respect of them
-If you are reliant on the LA level of care that would be the case if you were down to your last £100k too but you would still get care
-If the person you transferred it to loses entitlement to benefits or services because of the transfer then there is no point making the transfer unless it is substantial
-The presumption is you have sold the property and given the proceeds to your children not that you continue to live there and from 2020 inheritance tax will effectively have been abolished for all estates under £1 million value