The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
I wouldn't rule out a massive majority. May is viewed favourably by half the voters. Corbyn by a quarter.
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
She needs to rein back in the Tories --> Don't Knows. If she can do that, she'll still have a very comfortable majority. But she needs to own the decision to go on Care, expend some of the personal goodwill - and be convincing that whatever a few might have cause to fear, she has done it for the many...
And point out that, if you are worried what an upfront Tory Govt. might do to your personal wealth, then you should be reaching for the incontinence pants of what an eerily silent Labour Govt. would do to you.
Indeed.
The problem with the policy is not the policy itself but the lack of explanation.
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
She needs to rein back in the Tories --> Don't Knows. If she can do that, she'll still have a very comfortable majority. But she needs to own the decision to go on Care, expend some of the personal goodwill - and be convincing that whatever a few might have cause to fear, she has done it for the many...
And point out that, if you are worried what an upfront Tory Govt. might do to your personal wealth, then you should be reaching for the incontinence pants of what an eerily silent Labour Govt. would do to you.
Indeed.
The problem with the policy is not the policy itself but the lack of explanation.
I hope to god they are working on this for the interview tonight!
Survation still has the Tories gaining 60% of UKIP voters but they are now losing 7% of 2015 Tory voters to Labour and only gaining 8% of 2015 Labour voters and actually making a small net loss yo the LDs gaining 3% but losing 3.2%. Labour meanwhile is picking up 12% of 2015 LDs
It's a 'phone poll which started with 58% Remain sample.
Phone 'polls throw up all manner of oddities - Ipsos continually drag in samples where 40% of the workers contacted are in the public sector.
Survation produced an online poll with a lead of 12 at the same time as a phone poll with a lead of 9,
Nonetheless all post manifesto polls show the same thing, Corbyn picking up a quarter of 2015 LDs even if the Tories are picking up 60% of 2015 UKIP voters
Oh, the zoomers are NOT happy about the debate last night. Now that they can no longer whine about the audience, they have moved on to Sarah Smith, the moderator, for asking the wrong questions.
Awesome
Two things the SNP don't want to talk about:
Scottish Leaders Debate: clashes over indyref2 and SNP record
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
5 years plus keeps Corbyn in place for at least another couple of years? You get through Brexit and then look to secure a transformational majority in '22
LOL. Dream on. There's a recession due - probably an extremely bad one thanks to Brexit, but one due anyway. Tories will be v v unpopular within two or three years of this result.
Tories now have their former UKIP voters cushion though and for them immigration trumps economics
Survation still has the Tories gaining 60% of UKIP voters but they are now losing 7% of 2015 Tory voters to Labour and only gaining 8% of 2015 Labour voters and actually making a small net loss yo the LDs gaining 3% but losing 3.2%. Labour meanwhile is picking up 12% of 2015 LDs
It's a 'phone poll which started with 58% Remain sample.
Phone 'polls throw up all manner of oddities - Ipsos continually drag in samples where 40% of the workers contacted are in the public sector.
Survation produced an online poll with a lead of 12 at the same time as a phone poll with a lead of 9,
Nonetheless all post manifesto polls show the same thing, Corbyn picking up a quarter of 2015 LDs even if the Tories are picking up 60% of 2015 UKIP voters
The latter are far more useful in marginal seats than the former.
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
She needs to rein back in the Tories --> Don't Knows. If she can do that, she'll still have a very comfortable majority. But she needs to own the decision to go on Care, expend some of the personal goodwill - and be convincing that whatever a few might have cause to fear, she has done it for the many...
And point out that, if you are worried what an upfront Tory Govt. might do to your personal wealth, then you should be reaching for the incontinence pants of what an eerily silent Labour Govt. would do to you.
Indeed.
The problem with the policy is not the policy itself but the lack of explanation.
I hope to god they are working on this for the interview tonight!
The lack of attention to detail on this policy announcement is reminiscent of the Budget Self-employed NI change.
It makes you wonder what all those SPADs spend their time doing.
Well I think my bet that Labour will get the most votes excluding the Tories is looking pretty good. What a bizarre bet to offer that was, even at odds on.
The Tories have had a very poor campaign so far. There is little of the message discipline we saw in 2015. They started with the strong and stable motif but their diversion into Social Care and Winter Fuel Allowance was unwise. They are clearly expecting to make substantial savings from the latter but are being very vague about what means testing means causing uncertainty.
I am still waiting for a clear vision of the sort of country May wants to shape. Maybe we will get that in the interviews coming up but she was famous in the Home Office for giving interviews where she spoke a lot and said nothing. She needs to up her game as leader and give a picture of what she wants to achieve as PM.
Since she became PM she hasn't presented one single policy (and there haven't been many) without either a u-turn or a bungled presentation/message. It's risible.
I lived in Maidenhead for 12 years and she is an exceptionally conscientious MP. I think she has got the basic mix of policy right to maximise the Tory vote too. The problem is I think that she isn't a team player and tries to do too much of the work herself, so it ends up not being done as thoroughly as it should. I think she might be another Gordon Brown in that respect.
Sounds like she would make an excellent backbencher?
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
5 years plus keeps Corbyn in place for at least another couple of years? You get through Brexit and then look to secure a transformational majority in '22
LOL. Dream on. There's a recession due - probably an extremely bad one thanks to Brexit, but one due anyway. Tories will be v v unpopular within two or three years of this result.
Wasn't the 2010 winner going to be destroyed as a result of coping with the circumstances?
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
Better than the posh boys ever managed...
As you well know had Dave become PM last year under the same circumstances he would be well ahead of where TM is now. She would have lost to Miliband in 2015. Still waiting to hear if you've found any policies she hasn't bungled or nicked from Labour yet?
April 2016. Cameron's Tories trail Corbyn's Labour in the opinion polls. This bizarre defence of the bleeding obvious baffles me - May is far more popular in government than Cameron....
Oh, the zoomers are NOT happy about the debate last night. Now that they can no longer whine about the audience, they have moved on to Sarah Smith, the moderator, for asking the wrong questions.
Awesome
What was the actual debate like, was there a clear winner? Am assuming it was a 2 way between Sturgeon and Davidson with the others as also-rans?
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
I wouldn't rule out a massive majority. May is viewed favourably by half the voters. Corbyn by a quarter.
May is already close to getting that half and the rest are mainly LDs, just Corbyn is getting around 35% of left-wing voters behind him
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Argh, I have to wait until next weekend to find out what's happening?!
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
5 years plus keeps Corbyn in place for at least another couple of years? You get through Brexit and then look to secure a transformational majority in '22
LOL. Dream on. There's a recession due - probably an extremely bad one thanks to Brexit, but one due anyway. Tories will be v v unpopular within two or three years of this result.
Wasn't the 2010 winner going to be destroyed as a result of coping with the circumstances?
Despite all of Balls's gurning and gesticulating, the austerity recession never happened.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
It doesn't matter what TM says today - there's no way she can know today what the final deal will look like. If the legal decision is that the UK owes x billion, then the UK will pay x billion. She/we will do this because paying the money is not as bad as hanging our businesses out to dry.
And it's at that point that the politicians will start to blame the Brexit voters - that it wasn't the Tory government's decision to Leave... This will of course sound a bit rich coming from a leadership that's rebranded itself as the Kings of Brexit in order to win an election.
I think the amount paid will be determined by politics not law.
The problem she has is that almost any amount will seem too much to the general public.
Exactly - but that also means that the political cost is identical whatever is paid, but handing over a pile of cash will make the negotiations a lot easier. I advise investing in upmarket office furniture supply companies in the Brussels area.
I see the logic. But it also matters what Tory MPs think. Enough won't accept a massive Brexit bill.
Survation still has the Tories gaining 60% of UKIP voters but they are now losing 7% of 2015 Tory voters to Labour and only gaining 8% of 2015 Labour voters and actually making a small net loss yo the LDs gaining 3% but losing 3.2%. Labour meanwhile is picking up 12% of 2015 LDs
It's a 'phone poll which started with 58% Remain sample.
Phone 'polls throw up all manner of oddities - Ipsos continually drag in samples where 40% of the workers contacted are in the public sector.
Survation produced an online poll with a lead of 12 at the same time as a phone poll with a lead of 9,
Nonetheless all post manifesto polls show the same thing, Corbyn picking up a quarter of 2015 LDs even if the Tories are picking up 60% of 2015 UKIP voters
The key will be whether LD and Labour voters make different choices in different seats.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
She needs to rein back in the Tories --> Don't Knows. If she can do that, she'll still have a very comfortable majority. But she needs to own the decision to go on Care, expend some of the personal goodwill - and be convincing that whatever a few might have cause to fear, she has done it for the many...
And point out that, if you are worried what an upfront Tory Govt. might do to your personal wealth, then you should be reaching for the incontinence pants of what an eerily silent Labour Govt. would do to you.
Labour have not pledged to increase tax allowances for workers as far as I can see.
The low paid and the average worker will be worse off under Labour.
They always are - history shows they are the ones who lose their jobs under Labour.
Under relatively sane previous Labour administrations, they still left office with fewer in employment than when they arrived in office. This lot? They are so bat-shit crazy, they would have that five million unemployed before you could blink. And those wealthiest 1% who pay 27% of all income tax today? Good luck chasing them around the globe. No, it would be Mr and Mrs Average Blokes who would pick up the bill.
Everybody would be £213,875,309.37 worse off (Abbot adjusted).
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
5 years plus keeps Corbyn in place for at least another couple of years? You get through Brexit and then look to secure a transformational majority in '22
LOL. Dream on. There's a recession due - probably an extremely bad one thanks to Brexit, but one due anyway. Tories will be v v unpopular within two or three years of this result.
Wasn't the 2010 winner going to be destroyed as a result of coping with the circumstances?
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
There was supposed to be an important CCHQ announcement yesterday afternoon but, if there was, I missed it
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
She needs to rein back in the Tories --> Don't Knows. If she can do that, she'll still have a very comfortable majority. But she needs to own the decision to go on Care, expend some of the personal goodwill - and be convincing that whatever a few might have cause to fear, she has done it for the many...
And point out that, if you are worried what an upfront Tory Govt. might do to your personal wealth, then you should be reaching for the incontinence pants of what an eerily silent Labour Govt. would do to you.
Indeed.
The problem with the policy is not the policy itself but the lack of explanation.
I hope to god they are working on this for the interview tonight!
The lack of attention to detail on this policy announcement is reminiscent of the Budget Self-employed NI change.
It makes you wonder what all those SPADs spend their time doing.
Questions will be starting to be asked about how this fabled close-knit team of May's is actually functioning in reality and whether it is a small bubble which wont listen to anyone else. FT seem to be reporting that Cabinet knew nothing about this.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
There was supposed to be an important CCHQ announcement yesterday afternoon but, if there was, I missed it
There was? Hm, maybe just a poster wishing there was!
The lack of attention to detail on this policy announcement is reminiscent of the Budget Self-employed NI change.
It makes you wonder what all those SPADs spend their time doing.
Dementia tax is the worst, but the Tories have made several other mistakes from a campaigning point of view with things like WFA, fox hunting, and energy prices.
Corbyn's sums may not add up, but the Labour manifesto is full of goodies aimed at particular voters. The Tories on the other hand seem to have done almost the opposite, and they certainly don't seem to have thought about how they would defend their choices.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
There was supposed to be an important CCHQ announcement yesterday afternoon but, if there was, I missed it
They appear to be hoping it will all go away. It's laughably pathetic. Like the whole campaign so far.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
There was supposed to be an important CCHQ announcement yesterday afternoon but, if there was, I missed it
The announcement was a clarification that nothing will be changed.
I was really looking forward to some mahoosive swings on election night, not for any desired result but just for the giggles of the dropped jaws. May has gone and blown my fun. Stupid woman.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
If you google "dementia tax", the CCHQ clarification of the "so called Dementia Tax" comes up.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
The FT referred to the Bedroom tax as a Bedroom tax even though it was a change in housing benefit rules. Papers use the popular name as short-hand.
I personally still believe it is the right thing to do and probably the only solution that could be sensibly implemented. Presentation could have been a lot better though...
Indeed but hard to argue with him and many Tory voters will be thinking the same, it is a tough decision and maybe the right one but electorally Cameron and Osborne's plan to raise the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million and protect the family home from.being sold to pay for care bills had more appeal
Just looking at the latest Yougov tables, two thinks stand out about the Lib Dems. Firstly, the raw total of 2015 Lib Dems is being weighted down more than the other parties, so that's potentially good news for them.
However, they are only retaining 59% of that vote this time. That has to be a big worry form their current MPs.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Were we? I've just been hoping...
If you google "dementia tax", the CCHQ clarification of the "so called Dementia Tax" comes up.
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
I was really looking forward to some mahoosive swings on election night, not for any desired result but just for the giggles of the dropped jaws. May has gone and blown my fun. Stupid woman.
They might happen - this isn't going to be a UNS election.
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
Given there is still a deficit I think it is pretty easy to argue it is unaffordable/unsustainable.
I was really looking forward to some mahoosive swings on election night, not for any desired result but just for the giggles of the dropped jaws. May has gone and blown my fun. Stupid woman.
They might happen - this isn't going to be a UNS election.
The Wales poll today should be informative of any mood change in Labour strength areas.
The first is just about how horrible the Tory plan is, with the entire last section devoted to attacks by opponents.
The second is virtually a puff-piece on how wonderful Labour policy is, and a nonsensical line about Brexit as the only "contradiction" at the end.
Nothing about how unsustainable Labour plans are, or that in practice the real harm that will be done to the economy by even trying to implement their crazy plans.
I am not trying to start an argument about 'bias' or not. It is just a simple factual point about how the opposing sides are being presented to people.
I was really looking forward to some mahoosive swings on election night, not for any desired result but just for the giggles of the dropped jaws. May has gone and blown my fun. Stupid woman.
They might happen - this isn't going to be a UNS election.
The Wales poll today should be informative of any mood change in Labour strength areas.
Last time I think it was out at 6pm. before that we have an ICM to digest!
For people emoting about how terrible a 50 seat majority is, please remember than it's the largest majority that the Tories will have won since 1987.
Regardless, it's a derisory performance against Corbyn, particularly with UKIP and the Lib Dems in tatters.
Better than the posh boys ever managed...
Why? The 'posh boys' took a party that had been out of power for eight years, gained 120-odd seats over two general elections, and against an opposition that was much more unified and credible.
May should romp away with this election. Perhaps she still will. But she's only getting the opportunity because of the 'posh boys' you deride.
True but the posh boys also called an EU referendum that cost them their jobs and will dwarf anything else in UK politics for a decade and while their giveaway 2015 manifesto was electorally strong in terms of UK finances it was rather less so
The hysteria of the Conservative leavers was so strong I fail to see what they could have done aside from call a referendum. They managed to delay from the 2010 parliament because of the coalition; there was no way they could get away without calling one once they had a majority.
I voted remain, but I wanted a referendum, and am glad we got one. Hopefully once we leave we'll be able to rightly blame ourselves for our ills, rather than the EU.
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
I wouldn't rule out a massive majority. May is viewed favourably by half the voters. Corbyn by a quarter.
And the quarter that like Corbyn do not have the best record for turning out to vote.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
Except. Only about, say, seven days or more ago, we were under the impression that a core foundation of Tory thinking was that people who worked hard all their lives should be allowed to leave wealth to the next generation or grand kids and indeed that this was a natural instinct that should be preserved by the tax system.
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Just looking at the latest Yougov tables, two thinks stand out about the Lib Dems. Firstly, the raw total of 2015 Lib Dems is being weighted down more than the other parties, so that's potentially good news for them.
However, they are only retaining 59% of that vote this time. That has to be a big worry form their current MPs.
There is always a significant churn in LD voters. The greater problem is that they are not attracting many new ones.
It is starting to look like a massive and unnecessary own goal. It's all very well planning the long term and your 2022 victory but you've got to get the mandate in 2017 first, and they could have buried labour for a decade and more. Not now it seems. It will be interesting to see if this polling shift is a knee jerk which fades or a more fundamental movement and destabilisation of the Tory vote. Mood music by the weekend should confirm this.
Even the FT is calling it 'Dementia Tax', as Guardian is pointing out this morning. May has lost the narrative on this in an unbelievable cack-handed way.
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
I saw the fightback
Its that some councils aren't currently offering deferred payments.
I am sure that will work.
Anyway off out on the doorstep for a couple of hours to enlighten voters about the great house robbery.
Back at noon.
Hoping for a narrowing in ICM I predict a 3% - 4% to 17 or 16 lead
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Remember, Tories and big business go together. There must be something for them too !
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
The more fundamental question is what work has anyone done about how much the proposals will cost/save?
Being away in Ireland for a few days, I missed the Tory manifesto. I've just caught up ... What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
Yes, Damien Green said that. Problem is that this inept Tory cabinet are full of useless, hapless nincompoops !
To be fair, it sounds like they found out about this new flagship policy at around 11:15am on Thursday last week when they opened their copies of the blue manifesto.
Green was pretty awful in that Marr interview. And Marr was actually the angriest I have seen him - really pressing, which is not his style. Then the penny dropped - he had a major stroke. He probably had social care come in, so he knows something about how it feels etc.
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
The more fundamental question is what work has anyone done about how much the proposals will cost/save?
It is a master stroke from the Conservatives . Scrap the WFA so that people freeze to death in winter rather than get old and suffer dementia .
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
I suspect the reason why there is an announcement without any planning is because those talks failed - equity withdrawal only allows very limited percentages to be withdrawn depending on age at withdrawal.
Even the Tories are now calling the dementia tax the dementia tax. Theresa Meh is the one and only person on the planet who can make Jeremy "Big Jezza" Corbyn look good.
Except. Only about, say, seven days or more ago, we were under the impression that a core foundation of Tory thinking was that people who worked hard all their lives should be allowed to leave wealth to the next generation or grand kids and indeed that this was a natural instinct that should be preserved by the tax system.
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
Tories are all over the place.
The current social care system is a complete mess, with councils forcing home sales in court on families who should be looking after an aged relative. People opposing the proposal are comparing it to their idea of a socialist Utopia rather than the crap system that exists today.
IHT is a tax on those who aren't organised, mainly those who drop down dead early or die in an accident. It's the most pernicious tax of them all and IMHO should be abolished completely.
Being away in Ireland for a few days, I missed the Tory manifesto. I've just caught up ... What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
I really think they thought this would play as "She's tough. It's 'tough love'. We need to face up to the costs of social care and be straight with the country etc etc"
LOL. They have blown up their own campaign with a massive mine of their own placing.
Being away in Ireland for a few days, I missed the Tory manifesto. I've just caught up ... What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
One of my college tutors at university taught May. He said (in 2007ish) that she was a very nice girl but he didn't think much of her as a politician.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Remember, Tories and big business go together. There must be something for them too !
But recovery from the estate by the local council is the way it works for residential care already - providing councils make the effort to promote and manage the deferred payment scheme. No sensible person would take a commercial equity release product over having the debt rolled up. The public sector interest rate is currently 2.15% and I am sure commercial financial release schemes cost a lot more than that.
Au contraire - the bizarre thing about this campaign is that Jesmondo is clearly winning it. He likes campaigning. The rest of the party leaders clearly loathe it, especially Theresa Meh, who looks knackered and clearly wants it over with. She'll still win handsomely though.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
Yup. They undertook a survey in the Carlton Club. To make it more representative, they took another one in Mayfair.
Being away in Ireland for a few days, I missed the Tory manifesto. I've just caught up ... What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
I really think they thought this would play as "She's tough. It's 'tough love'. We need to face up to the costs of social care and be straight with the country etc etc"
LOL. They have blown up their own campaign with a massive mine of their own placing.
Idiotic. Tories really don't do campaigning do they
Except. Only about, say, seven days or more ago, we were under the impression that a core foundation of Tory thinking was that people who worked hard all their lives should be allowed to leave wealth to the next generation or grand kids and indeed that this was a natural instinct that should be preserved by the tax system.
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
Tories are all over the place.
The current social care system is a complete mess, with councils forcing home sales in court on families who should be looking after an aged relative. People opposing the proposal are comparing it to their idea of a socialist Utopia rather than the crap system that exists today.
IHT is a tax on those who aren't organised, mainly those who drop down dead early or die in an accident. It's the most pernicious tax of them all and IMHO should be abolished completely.
It would nevertheless be fairer to find a way of levying a modest level of IHT across the board and use the proceeds to fund care, in preference to nabbing the homes of the unlucky?
It's not too late to sack Nick Timothy and bring back George Osborne to run the campaign, because you don't want to be remembered as the Tory leader who blew it against Corbyn.
Because if you do, I'd hate to Graham Brady's postman on June 9th/10th.
This is most extraordinary. The hysterical warnings at the time of the EU Referendum came precisely from the leaders of the Remain campaign. They were David Cameron and George Osborne, who at the time were leaders of the Conservative Party.
Why is Mrs May attacking her former friends and colleagues in this way?
@ScottyNational: Events: Note that today's social media stoning of the heretic who criticised Sturgeon will take place at noon. Bring your own twitter gravel
Except. Only about, say, seven days or more ago, we were under the impression that a core foundation of Tory thinking was that people who worked hard all their lives should be allowed to leave wealth to the next generation or grand kids and indeed that this was a natural instinct that should be preserved by the tax system.
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
Tories are all over the place.
A few thoughts on this:
First of all the £1m (in a few years) is only if you meet the eligibility for it - property left to a direct lineal descendent and no use of trusts.
Second - If you work hard all your lives, don't need care or otherwise pay for it privately (either yourselves or with your family's help) then there's no contradiction in a higher IHT threshold to then pass on to them the wealth you built up.
Third - if you do need 10 years of care why is it fair for the pensioner next door who doesn't to pay for you when you have wealth of your own - but where your wealth is now protected to £100k not £23k as currently applies?
Fourth - there are immediate needs annuity products which can be bought by the pensioner and/or family to pay towards the care in own home or in a care home and where it's tax-free if paid to the registered carer directly - if you or the family are so worried, cap it and transfer the longevity risk to an insurer if you have the means.
Fifth - £100k is a lot more than £23k
Sixth - Attendance allowance of up to £83.10pw is already paid out tax-free non means tested to those who qualify whether in own home or in a care home and that doesn't appear to be changing when you could argue it should be.
Seventh - the £72k cap is well known to have been spin not substance due to the hotel costs not being factored in to when you reach the cap, the Saga article on this explained why. It's also been repeatedly delayed and kicked in to the long-grass.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Why are the Tories even making policy on this super complicated and emotional issue in a manifesto? Social care is precisely the sort of issue that needs a serious long examination, and ideally cross party support. Instead the Tories had a brainwave and decided to change the current rules in the manifesto (improving things marginally) without any thought it seems about how it would go down with the country.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Remember, Tories and big business go together. There must be something for them too !
But recovery from the estate by the local council is the way it works for residential care already - providing councils make the effort to promote and manage the deferred payment scheme. No sensible person would take a commercial equity release product over having the debt rolled up. The public sector interest rate is currently 2.15% and I am sure commercial financial release schemes cost a lot more than that.
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
Q: What are the costs of lower immigration to the tens of thousands ? The ORB says....
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
I wouldn't rule out a massive majority. May is viewed favourably by half the voters. Corbyn by a quarter.
The chances of a majority of near 150+ a la Thatcher 1983 or Blair 1997 or 2001 are now gone I think instead May will have to aim for Blair 2005 or at most Thatcher 1987 if she wants to see a reasonable increase in her majority. The 9% lead in this poll UK wide is still more than the 7% Cameron got but May needs to squeeze 2 to 3% from Labour if it is to be anything significant
I wouldn't rule out a massive majority. May is viewed favourably by half the voters. Corbyn by a quarter.
The supplementals say massive Con majority. The drop in Con vote share is effectively virtue signalling by people who are going to vote Tory on the day.
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Why are the Tories even making policy on this super complicated and emotional issue in a manifesto? Social care is precisely the sort of issue that needs a serious long examination, and ideally cross party support. Instead the Tories had a brainwave and decided to change the current rules in the manifesto (improving things marginally) without any thought it seems about how it would go down with the country.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Being away in Ireland for a few days, I missed the Tory manifesto. I've just caught up ... What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
I really think they thought this would play as "She's tough. It's 'tough love'. We need to face up to the costs of social care and be straight with the country etc etc"
LOL. They have blown up their own campaign with a massive mine of their own placing.
Which might have worked had the policy not been half baked. (See also the detail-less curtailing of the WFA.)
If you're going to present an unpopular, but necessary measure, at least ensure that it's fully worked through and costed, unless you want to leave it open to unfair as well as fair attacks. Sheer arrogance.
This isn't actually bad news for the Tories, not great for the Lib Dems though.
On the other hand, labour are trying to bank the polling shift and get another from youngsters registering to vote today. Labour's campaign is far far better than the Tories. The Poll lead shrink is astonishing
Why is Mrs May attacking her former friends and colleagues in this way?
Many commentators have noted that Tezza defines herself against Cameron and Osborne. She figures out what course Cameron would have taken, then announces or does the opposite.
I didn't expect her to add 'winning elections' to that list, but she is Strong and Stable...
The last week or so has been clever politics by the Tories IMO. No party needs to have a 20 point lead in the polls. You might as well exchange some of that for proposing some very necessary but unpopular policies like they've done. A 10 point lead is still plenty to win a good majority for five years.
Bloody good question. Adds to the lottery feel of the whole thing.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care" A: "Because it is not affordable." Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable." A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..." Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change." A:" I erm, erm..." Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
Q: What are the costs of lower immigration to the tens of thousands ? The ORB says....
Just be glad that the Tories didn't do as Labour asked and commit the OBR to costing manifestos!
According to reports the Tories have been consulting over the last 3 months with vested interests on equity release products to cover care costs. They see it as a lucrative way to gain equity from peoples houses and rebuild the finances of Insurance companies. Also good for Government tax take on companies profiting from care and equity release.
I don't understand this aspect of it. Why not simply apply the charge on the estate at death? No need for any instruments.
Remember, Tories and big business go together. There must be something for them too !
But recovery from the estate by the local council is the way it works for residential care already - providing councils make the effort to promote and manage the deferred payment scheme. No sensible person would take a commercial equity release product over having the debt rolled up. The public sector interest rate is currently 2.15% and I am sure commercial financial release schemes cost a lot more than that.
Most equity release schemes are very expensive.
Yes, I don't trust the daytime TV adverts one bit.
Except. Only about, say, seven days or more ago, we were under the impression that a core foundation of Tory thinking was that people who worked hard all their lives should be allowed to leave wealth to the next generation or grand kids and indeed that this was a natural instinct that should be preserved by the tax system.
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
Tories are all over the place.
The current social care system is a complete mess, with councils forcing home sales in court on families who should be looking after an aged relative. People opposing the proposal are comparing it to their idea of a socialist Utopia rather than the crap system that exists today.
IHT is a tax on those who aren't organised, mainly those who drop down dead early or die in an accident. It's the most pernicious tax of them all and IMHO should be abolished completely.
It would nevertheless be fairer to find a way of levying a modest level of IHT across the board and use the proceeds to fund care, in preference to nabbing the homes of the unlucky?
A modest level of IHT ? The problem is (i) the money needed is substantial (9 billion a year for just the present population in residential care) and (ii) IHT is so easy to avoid.
There are no easy answers to an ageing population needing substantial social care.
It is pity this is being discussed in the heat of an election, but the demential tax has been in existence for at least 15 years, so I guess it needed an election to force us to discuss it.
Comments
The problem with the policy is not the policy itself but the lack of explanation.
Lab 60% to gain Preseli Pembrokeshire !
Scottish Leaders Debate: clashes over indyref2 and SNP record
http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/general-election/scottish-leaders-debate-clashes-over-indyref2-and-snp-record-1-4452930
It makes you wonder what all those SPADs spend their time doing.
And Nicola lost
We were promised a fight back on care and the truth about the current system this morning. Where is it?
Enough won't accept a massive Brexit bill.
Under relatively sane previous Labour administrations, they still left office with fewer in employment than when they arrived in office. This lot? They are so bat-shit crazy, they would have that five million unemployed before you could blink. And those wealthiest 1% who pay 27% of all income tax today? Good luck chasing them around the globe. No, it would be Mr and Mrs Average Blokes who would pick up the bill.
Everybody would be £213,875,309.37 worse off (Abbot adjusted).
Corbyn's sums may not add up, but the Labour manifesto is full of goodies aimed at particular voters. The Tories on the other hand seem to have done almost the opposite, and they certainly don't seem to have thought about how they would defend their choices.
I personally still believe it is the right thing to do and probably the only solution that could be sensibly implemented. Presentation could have been a lot better though...
However, they are only retaining 59% of that vote this time. That has to be a big worry form their current MPs.
I expect Andrew Neil is already starting to warm his engines for tonight's encounter.
Q: "Why did you remove the lifetime cap on care"
A: "Because it is not affordable."
Q: "When did you find out it was not affordable? Because it was apparently affordable until last week when you change the policy via a manifesto. How long have you known it was unaffordable."
A: "Well, I, er, government reviews these things all the time, erm..."
Q: "It does does it. So how come we can't find a single Cabinet minister who knows anything about this removal of the cap change."
A:" I erm, erm..."
Q: "I think the answer is PM, because you and your own staff put this in a manifesto with no discussion with anyone else in government. Tell me what is the figure you have scoped out to show that it is not affordable to place a lifetime cap on care?"
and so on..
This is the fight back?
https://twitter.com/jameskirkup/status/866562745130504196
I'm not surprised that polls are moving to Labour. Here are the top two BBC articles this morning:
General election 2017: New warning over social care plans
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39995648
General election 2017: Labour brings forward tuition fees pledge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39994886
The first is just about how horrible the Tory plan is, with the entire last section devoted to attacks by opponents.
The second is virtually a puff-piece on how wonderful Labour policy is, and a nonsensical line about Brexit as the only "contradiction" at the end.
Nothing about how unsustainable Labour plans are, or that in practice the real harm that will be done to the economy by even trying to implement their crazy plans.
I am not trying to start an argument about 'bias' or not. It is just a simple factual point about how the opposing sides are being presented to people.
I voted remain, but I wanted a referendum, and am glad we got one. Hopefully once we leave we'll be able to rightly blame ourselves for our ills, rather than the EU.
The other part of me is absolutely horrified we could be heading back to that era undet Corbyn. I've turned all SeanT
Why is IHT going up to £1m, if the social care system is broken?
Tories are all over the place.
Its that some councils aren't currently offering deferred payments.
I am sure that will work.
Anyway off out on the doorstep for a couple of hours to enlighten voters about the great house robbery.
Back at noon.
Hoping for a narrowing in ICM I predict a 3% - 4% to 17 or 16 lead
What an amazingly ham-fisted policy - far dafter than the Ed Stone even. It has all the fingerprints of a Spad interfering with youthful exuberance and zero political nous.
May is uninspiring but I gave her points for political sense. Not so sure now.
Green was pretty awful in that Marr interview. And Marr was actually the angriest I have seen him - really pressing, which is not his style. Then the penny dropped - he had a major stroke. He probably had social care come in, so he knows something about how it feels etc.
IHT is a tax on those who aren't organised, mainly those who drop down dead early or die in an accident. It's the most pernicious tax of them all and IMHO should be abolished completely.
LOL. They have blown up their own campaign with a massive mine of their own placing.
Au contraire - the bizarre thing about this campaign is that Jesmondo is clearly winning it. He likes campaigning. The rest of the party leaders clearly loathe it, especially Theresa Meh, who looks knackered and clearly wants it over with. She'll still win handsomely though.
I still think the Conservatives will win, but by a lesser margin than they should've, and that may embolden Corbyn to remain.
*sighs*
It's not too late to sack Nick Timothy and bring back George Osborne to run the campaign, because you don't want to be remembered as the Tory leader who blew it against Corbyn.
Because if you do, I'd hate to Graham Brady's postman on June 9th/10th.
This isn't actually bad news for the Tories, not great for the Lib Dems though.
Why is Mrs May attacking her former friends and colleagues in this way?
First of all the £1m (in a few years) is only if you meet the eligibility for it - property left to a direct lineal descendent and no use of trusts.
Second - If you work hard all your lives, don't need care or otherwise pay for it privately (either yourselves or with your family's help) then there's no contradiction in a higher IHT threshold to then pass on to them the wealth you built up.
Third - if you do need 10 years of care why is it fair for the pensioner next door who doesn't to pay for you when you have wealth of your own - but where your wealth is now protected to £100k not £23k as currently applies?
Fourth - there are immediate needs annuity products which can be bought by the pensioner and/or family to pay towards the care in own home or in a care home and where it's tax-free if paid to the registered carer directly - if you or the family are so worried, cap it and transfer the longevity risk to an insurer if you have the means.
Fifth - £100k is a lot more than £23k
Sixth - Attendance allowance of up to £83.10pw is already paid out tax-free non means tested to those who qualify whether in own home or in a care home and that doesn't appear to be changing when you could argue it should be.
Seventh - the £72k cap is well known to have been spin not substance due to the hotel costs not being factored in to when you reach the cap, the Saga article on this explained why. It's also been repeatedly delayed and kicked in to the long-grass.
"It's not too late to sack Nick Timothy and bring back George Osborne."
George already has fifteen jobs, don't saddle him with another.
The Tories don't deserve to win but they will.
(See also the detail-less curtailing of the WFA.)
If you're going to present an unpopular, but necessary measure, at least ensure that it's fully worked through and costed, unless you want to leave it open to unfair as well as fair attacks.
Sheer arrogance.
I didn't expect her to add 'winning elections' to that list, but she is Strong and Stable...
There are no easy answers to an ageing population needing substantial social care.
It is pity this is being discussed in the heat of an election, but the demential tax has been in existence for at least 15 years, so I guess it needed an election to force us to discuss it.