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?
So you want people who lose their parents when they're younger to not only lose their parents but also lose a chunk of their inheritance to pay for people who have their parents around for longer.
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.
Or being in marginal constituencies for this election.
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
Politics of envy is ever present but unsaid.
Today's proposals by Labour may well lead to a fair few shy 2000-2012 graduate Tory votes...
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.
Ironically the LDs could make net gains through tactical voting in Tory Remain seats despite flatlining voteshare but Labour still make a net loss of seats despite increased voteshare because of the UKIP vote going Tory in Labour Leave seats
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.
I suspect the honest answer is that, because they were simply "harmonising" the arrangements for home care with those that already exist for residential care, sweetened by making the latter less punitive with the £100k cap, they overlooked the potential for it to become a big issue in the heat of a GE. Largely because so few people understand how things work for residential care right now.
It's a bit like the "bedroom tax", which "harmonised" housing benefit for council tenants with the existing arrangements for private tenants, but became a massive stick for the Tories all the same.
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?
I think the problem with that is that most people dont see (and don't want to see) long term residential care as something that might happen to them. There's also a perception among most voters that the 'baby boomer' generation are being excessively looked after by government, at the expense of younger generations.
The IHT problem was that it started to impact a lot of people in the south of England who had gone through their lives never speaking to a financial advisor, were C1 and C2 who just happened to live somewhere where property prices skyrocketed. The 2007 Tory policy moved millions of votes almost overnight.
I support the proposed policy, but am open to looking at properly costed alternatives. It's not an easy subject and needs reasoned debate.
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.
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
Politics of envy is ever present but unsaid.
Today's proposals by Labour may well lead to a fair few shy 2000-2012 graduate Tory votes...
Yeah..., "You are saying I have to pay for my debt AND for them to go to university?".
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?"
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.
Precisely. While the policy (if fully worked out), might on its own be defensible, it makes a nonsense of the Tory principles on inheritance tax. I know May says she doesn't do political philosophy - but it appears that she doesn't do consistency either.
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.
I personally believe that is the truth of it.
Social care is close to collapse. Councils are spending huge proportions of their budgets on social care, and so the other services they are offering are being pared to the bone.
In 5 years time, the present system will have collapsed, and so they probably realized they had to do something.
There is no real alternative but for some of the wealth possessed by the elderly in houses to be diverted to social care -- one way or another.
Tory manifesto: Life is tough. Money's tight. Here are some lemons. Be repsonsible with the nation's finances. Labour manifesto: Life is tough. Money's free. Here is a jam tsunami. What's a deficit?
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
There was a suggestion on the last thread of keeping both aspects, having a floor and a cap, so you only pay a max of (say) £75k on assets above £100k. Tweak the thresholds to get in 75% of the expected revenue of the original policy, and get the rest of the money from somewhere else.
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.
A few people in Surrey with expensive houses and worried about care costs might vote Labour - I'm not too sure that Theresa May in Maidenhead and a Michael Gove in Camberley are too worried about their seats. It will dawn on those voters soon enough that the 1970s policies of Corbyn would be less than optimal for them in the long term.
Meanwhile, in the Midlands marginals, 3/4 of the massive UKIP vote from 2015 is going Tory, and the working classes prefer Theresa May over IRA supporter Corbyn by a margin of two to one.
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.
Ironically the LDs could make net gains through tactical voting in Tory Remain seats despite flatlining voteshare but Labour still make a net loss of seats despite increased voteshare because of the UKIP vote going Tory in Labour Leave seats
Both sides have the problem that Corbyn makes LD voters less keen to vote tactically (half of them probably prefer May) and the fading memory of the coalition makes Labour voters less keen. Maybe the glitter falling off the Tory campaign (not that there really was any) combined with vigorous opposition from the LDs to the Tory pensioner plans changes things?
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.
The products currently available in this market look (from their own expensive marketing) like a complete rip off. Compounded interest at 4-5% builds up very quickly.
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.
Ironically the LDs could make net gains through tactical voting in Tory Remain seats despite flatlining voteshare but Labour still make a net loss of seats despite increased voteshare because of the UKIP vote going Tory in Labour Leave seats
Both sides have the problem that Corbyn makes LD voters less keen to vote tactically (half of them probably prefer May) and the fading memory of the coalition makes Labour voters less keen. Maybe the glitter falling off the Tory campaign (not that there really was any) combined with vigorous opposition from the LDs to the Tory pensioner plans changes things?
Labour voters are more likely to vote tactically LD than LD voters to vote tactically for Corbyn Labour I think, compare Richmond Park and Copeland
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
Tory manifesto: Life is tough. Money's tight. Here are some lemons. Be repsonsible with the nation's finances. Labour manifesto: Life is tough. Money's free. Here is a jam tsunami. What's a deficit?
Absolutely. Potentially tempting with no debt and a surplus. But irresponsible with reality.
And there's absolutely no way corbyn is capable of running or implementing any of these things
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Should have capped and collared it. Nobody leaves less than 100k, nobody pays more than 100k
Agreed. And if those numbers don't work in the future, it's a darn sight easier to adjust them in future budgets.
Indeed. And they could have 'consulted' on the right figure for capping in 3-4 years to be implemented 22-27. They are idiots though. They could even announce that now and say that they are readjusting the WFA means test to 35k (Which it probably was anyway) to pay for it in response to feedback.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
Ignoring a knight of the realm, no less. Off with his head!
Tory manifesto: Life is tough. Money's tight. Here are some lemons. Be repsonsible with the nation's finances. Labour manifesto: Life is tough. Money's free. Here is a jam tsunami. What's a deficit?
Most people are looking for jam for me and lemons for you.
When did the Tories last mention the deficit? The key word in that long-term economic plan turned out to be "long".
Tory manifesto: Life is tough. Money's tight. Here are some lemons. Be repsonsible with the nation's finances. Labour manifesto: Life is tough. Money's free. Here is a jam tsunami. What's a deficit?
Whoever wrote the Tory manifesto cannot be familiar with the party's record rather than its rhetoric. We Londoners are fortunate that the Evening Standard will examine the issues forensically.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Should have capped and collared it. Nobody leaves less than 100k, nobody pays more than 100k
Agreed. And if those numbers don't work in the future, it's a darn sight easier to adjust them in future budgets.
I think that would make it far more palatable.
I think the problem is that most people simply don't know they can be almost completely wiped out by current rules. So being able to keep £100k doesn't sound like a gain, as mentally people are looking at their home's value and thinking something like "that's less than a third left!"
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.
The products currently available in this market look (from their own expensive marketing) like a complete rip off. Compounded interest at 4-5% builds up very quickly.
The City needs something to replace Annuity business: which is dead.
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.
Absolutely. Massive props to the Tories for even broaching the subject. That we are talking about it before the election gives a mandate to do something about it afterwards.
Meanwhile, Betfair has gone mad this morning, the majority is now out to 1.13. (1/8 ish when commission deducted). Given the marginals polling, that's surely free money when we collectively agreed 1.11 was value yesterday?
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Should have capped and collared it. Nobody leaves less than 100k, nobody pays more than 100k
Indeed.
I suggested something similar yesterday.
Where are your costings?
Well they didn't bother costing anything in the manifesto so why not throw a few billion at the votes? Labour are doing it with a few billion on tuition fees for an extra year. It's a joke, the whole thing.
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
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.
I doubt it. Of all the things I believe about Brexit, the one I believe the most is that it won't resolve anything, at least for years.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
@Pulpstar - isn't the policy that the student doesn't have to pay anything back? The government only has to decide how much money to give the universities.
Surely affordability is due to where the bands are set?
The Tories have electoral sticker-shock, it doesn't matter than £100k is more than £23k, for people in homes worth a lot more (and for most that will be their only substantial asset) either figure is horrifying. If there was a sensible limit to the maximum paid, people would think something like "that still leaves two thirds" or better.
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.
The products currently available in this market look (from their own expensive marketing) like a complete rip off. Compounded interest at 4-5% builds up very quickly.
The City needs something to replace Annuity business: which is dead.
Wrong. It's still just about there... I'm doing one for a client currently but...
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?
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.
Anyone using the word, lucrative is (a) a journalist with a limited vocabulary or (b) reading from a script. It's a word, like revelry, which is not used in the normal world.
Meanwhile, Betfair has gone mad this morning, the majority is now out to 1.13. (1/8 ish when commission deducted). Given the marginals polling, that's surely free money when we collectively agreed 1.11 was value yesterday?
Okay, at 12% return after commission that starts to look beyond tempting.
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...
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
It's already the case that tuition fees are largely a clever way of accounting for extra government spending now and hiding the debt with future repayments that are significantly hypothetical. Another PFI-style trick to pass the pain down the road. No surprise therefore that it was Labour that introduced it.
A key mistake was basing the sums on the current world where the 25% of people who went to Uni in the 70s and 80s mostly have well paid secure jobs, with a future world where more than half of people have degrees and the labour market will be very different.
@Pulpstar - isn't the policy that the student doesn't have to pay anything back? The government only has to decide how much money to give the universities.
I'm not advocating the Labour plan. More looking at the fact tuition fees over a certain point cost the government money (I think)
@Pulpstar - isn't the policy that the student doesn't have to pay anything back? The government only has to decide how much money to give the universities.
I'm not advocating the Labour plan. More looking at the fact tuition fees over a certain point cost the government money (I think)
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.
Ironically the LDs could make net gains through tactical voting in Tory Remain seats despite flatlining voteshare but Labour still make a net loss of seats despite increased voteshare because of the UKIP vote going Tory in Labour Leave seats
Both sides have the problem that Corbyn makes LD voters less keen to vote tactically (half of them probably prefer May) and the fading memory of the coalition makes Labour voters less keen. Maybe the glitter falling off the Tory campaign (not that there really was any) combined with vigorous opposition from the LDs to the Tory pensioner plans changes things?
Labour voters are more likely to vote tactically LD than LD voters to vote tactically for Corbyn Labour I think, compare Richmond Park and Copeland
I have just voted. I voted for the candidate best positioned to stop the Tories getting a majority.
Some Labour fellow on the Today programme this morning making it clear that the only reason Labour are opposed to the social care proposals is because they want to impose a wealth tax on peoples' houses instead.
So rather than "dialling down the left-wing shit" in SeanT's phrase, they appear to be dialling it up.
The Tories should concentrate on pulling apart Labour's fantastical manifesto proposals and showing how much they will cost each and every one of us in higher tax - all those with pensions and savings or jobs in the finaancial services sector (and I don't just mean the City) will be hurt by the Financial Transactions Tax, all who buy goods or services from companies will be hurt by rises in corporation tax, all who have any sort of property or assets or savings will be hurt by a wealth tax, all who aspire to do well will be hurt by rises in income tax etc.
And our young will have ever more debt loaded onto them as a result of the increasing borrowing Labour plan.
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.
Gonna have some pissed off candidates though who thought they were in with a chance of a seat.
That said, big majorities just leave a larger festering pool of malcontents who see their chances of advancing up the greasy pole just got that much more difficult.
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
Some Labour fellow on the Today programme this morning making it clear that the only reason Labour are opposed to the social care proposals is because they want to impose a wealth tax on peoples' houses instead.
So rather than "dialling down the left-wing shit" in SeanT's phrase, they appear to be dialling it up.
The Tories should concentrate on pulling apart Labour's fantastical manifesto proposals and showing how much they will cost each and every one of us in higher tax - all those with pensions and savings or jobs in the finaancial services sector (and I don't just mean the City) will be hurt by the Financial Transactions Tax, all who buy goods or services from companies will be hurt by rises in corporation tax, all who have any sort of property or assets or savings will be hurt by a wealth tax, all who aspire to do well will be hurt by rises in income tax etc.
And our young will have ever more debt loaded onto them as a result of the increasing borrowing Labour plan.
The two minor problems being that when the Tories win they'll be looking for ways to push up taxes, and the debt will continue rising meantime...
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
LOL! A majority of 50, from where the Tories started and against Jezza, would be a disaster and leave Mrs May in a considerably weaker position from whence she started.
The problem the Conservatives have with social care is that they suddenly dumped a policy on the public that is a half baked version of a Labour policy that they aggressively and successfully derided as a "death tax". Hypocrisy isn't a bar in politics but you have to carry the public with you so they make their U turns in step with yours.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?
I don’t know who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
E.g., there is a care home population of 300,000 paying 30k a year, so that means to completely pay for just the residential care component would be 9 billion a year. Many more people need in-home care, but it is less expensive per person -- I think I worked out another 15 billion.
So, I think just to pay for everything you need about 24 or 25 billion for the population today.
The LibDems 1p on income tax (and credit to them for suggesting it) will raise about 4 billion, I think. So, you can see if raised via income tax, this is a biggish hit.
It is not unaffordable, but probably impossible to get elected on such a platform.
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
The current student loan situation is a complete mess. The problem they have is graduates disappearing and failing to pay back the loans, or never earning enough to do so. Funnily enough most of those are from the wider EU countries who we have no choice but to allow into the scheme.
If you're from Estonia or Romania, you can get a free degree from a British university as long as you don't get a PAYE job in the UK afterwards.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?
I don’t know who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
E.g., there is a care home population of 300,000 paying 30k a year, so that means to completely pay for just the residential care component would be 9 billion a year. Many more people need in-home care, but it is less expensive per person -- I think I worked out another 15 billion.
So, I think just to pay for everything you need about 24 or 25 billion for the population today.
The LibDems 1p on income tax (and credit to them for suggesting it) will raise about 4 billion, I think. So, you can see if raised via income tax, this is a biggish hit.
It is not unaffordable, but probably impossible to get elected on such a platform.
The 1p is nearer £6bn, I believe. But a good analysis.
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
"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.
This is all Osborne's fault. The Death Tax stuff from the 2010 general election is coming back to haunt the Tories. This would not have been an issue now if something had been done about it then - as it could have been.
There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking. If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?
I don’t know who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
E.g., there is a care home population of 300,000 paying 30k a year, so that means to completely pay for just the residential care component would be 9 billion a year. Many more people need in-home care, but it is less expensive per person -- I think I worked out another 15 billion.
So, I think just to pay for everything you need about 24 or 25 billion for the population today.
The LibDems 1p on income tax (and credit to them for suggesting it) will raise about 4 billion, I think. So, you can see if raised via income tax, this is a biggish hit.
It is not unaffordable, but probably impossible to get elected on such a platform.
The 1p is nearer £6bn, I believe. But a good analysis.
Are there any numbers for the 'Tory plan'?
IFS may have some insight in their analysis tomorrow.
Good to the sensible Left among the commantariat waking up to what the proposal actually means in practise.
This is the thing.
For all the rhetoric about being progressive, Labour appear to be in a position of supporting free heating for millionaires whilst implementing £7bn worth of welfare cuts and free care for those with hundreds of thousands in assets paid for by people with none.
There is no sign that I can see of Labour upping the tax free threshold for low and middle pay earners either - so a tax rise on the lowest paid workers.
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
The current student loan situation is a complete mess. The problem they have is graduates disappearing and failing to pay back the loans, or never earning enough to do so. Funnily enough most of those are from the wider EU countries who we have no choice but to allow into the scheme.
If you're from Estonia or Romania, you can get a free degree from a British university as long as you don't get a PAYE job in the UK afterwards.
Unfair to try and pin the problem on EU students, who remain a small minority. The more fundamental problem is that the growing army of young people with degrees are not walking into secure higher-paid career paths, like many (of the smaller proportion of) graduates did thirty or forty years ago.
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
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.
No: giving difficult and potentially unpopular, but necessary, policies the legitimacy of inclusion within the manifesto is sensible politics when doing so doesn't excessively place at risk the chance of a majority; unveiling a half-baked green paper as a central campaigning message, without explaining it properly and so leaving the field open for Labour and the Lib Dems to misrepresent is bloody stupid politics. It's all the more so because having mistreated and bored the media for the first month of the campaign, this is precisely the sort of story they were looking for to liven the election up and to stick one back to the Tories.
The Labour tuition fees wheeze this morning is the most brilliant bit of fast political footwork since I don't know when, the perfect second part of the double whammy after May self-administered the first. Tories horrid to the old, Labour lovely to theytoung. Genius.
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
Surely not - doesn't this happen every time and then we find that 3/4 were already registered....?
I dont know how this compares to last time, but I remember the claimed number in 2015 being followed by a 'million', so it does happen every time. A significant number will be people getting registered at addresses they have moved to recently, or students registering at Uni or at home depending on where they expect to be, and therefore already registered. Nevertheless it does mean they are more likely to vote.
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
LOL! A majority of 50, from where the Tories started and against Jezza, would be a disaster and leave Mrs May in a considerably weaker position from whence she started.
Am a May supporter but would agree with this. Hopefully she will come through the wobble (early signs are positive that she is not u-turning on the brave social care policy) and she'll get a majority of 80-90
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
LOL! A majority of 50, from where the Tories started and against Jezza, would be a disaster and leave Mrs May in a considerably weaker position from whence she started.
I'm not saying it will be as low as 50 - just that, really, nothing much is at stake even if it is.
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
The problem the Conservatives have with social care is that they suddenly dumped a policy on the public that is a half baked version of a Labour policy that they aggressively and successfully derided as a "death tax". Hypocrisy isn't a bar in politics but you have to carry the public with you so they make their U turns in step with yours.
Exactly. We could be seven years into a sensible and workable plan that would have done all the things the Tories now realise need to be done. Osborne and Cameron created this problem, not Theresa May. I don't think her solution is the best one, but it at least gets the debate going.
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
The current student loan situation is a complete mess. The problem they have is graduates disappearing and failing to pay back the loans, or never earning enough to do so. Funnily enough most of those are from the wider EU countries who we have no choice but to allow into the scheme.
If you're from Estonia or Romania, you can get a free degree from a British university as long as you don't get a PAYE job in the UK afterwards.
Unfair to try and pin the problem on EU students, who remain a small minority. The more fundamental problem is that the growing army of young people with degrees are not walking into secure higher-paid career paths, like many (of the smaller proportion of) graduates did thirty or forty years ago.
There's that too. When 15% of the population were graduates, they pretty much all walked into a very good career afterwards. Now that close to 50% are graduating there's not enough good careers to go around.
As well as the EU students, there's also the British graduates who emigrate to consider - I live in Dubai (hence the name), and there's plenty of twenty-something Brits out here who have no intention of paying back their student loans. In the modern world it's very easy for someone to disappear from debts in another country.
The Labour tuition fees wheeze this morning is the most brilliant bit of fast political footwork since I don't know when, the perfect second part of the double whammy after May self-administered the first. Tories horrid to the old, Labour lovely to theytoung. Genius.
Agreed. Tories are getting mullered by labour in the campaign
This is where Cameron cocked up the strategy. He should have said, if I lose the referendum, I'll resign, and it'll be negotiated by either Jeremy Corbyn or one of the assorted nutjobs and chancers on the benches next to me.
On tuition fees, there must be a point past which higher fees cost the government more money.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime. So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
The current student loan situation is a complete mess. The problem they have is graduates disappearing and failing to pay back the loans, or never earning enough to do so. Funnily enough most of those are from the wider EU countries who we have no choice but to allow into the scheme.
If you're from Estonia or Romania, you can get a free degree from a British university as long as you don't get a PAYE job in the UK afterwards.
Unfair to try and pin the problem on EU students, who remain a small minority. The more fundamental problem is that the growing army of young people with degrees are not walking into secure higher-paid career paths, like many (of the smaller proportion of) graduates did thirty or forty years ago.
There's that too. When 15% of the population were graduates, they pretty much all walked into a very good career afterwards. Now that close to 50% are graduating there's not enough good careers to go around.
As well as the EU students, there's also the British graduates who emigrate to consider - I live in Dubai, and there's plenty of twenty-something Brits out here who have no intention of paying back their student loans. In the modern world it's very easy for someone to disappear from debts in another country.
Am I the only sucker that pays their student loan back from overseas?
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.
No: giving difficult and potentially unpopular, but necessary, policies the legitimacy of inclusion within the manifesto is sensible politics when doing so doesn't excessively place at risk the chance of a majority; unveiling a half-baked green paper as a central campaigning message, without explaining it properly and so leaving the field open for Labour and the Lib Dems to misrepresent is bloody stupid politics. It's all the more so because having mistreated and bored the media for the first month of the campaign, this is precisely the sort of story they were looking for to liven the election up and to stick one back to the Tories.
Afraid I'm with Andy here.
The Tory manifesto is grown up, putting the future of the country and people above party politics.
Oh, and it makes the Lords opposing it pretty difficult too.
During the 2015 general election around five million applications to register to vote were made in England and Wales between January 1 and the deadline on April 20 – but the number registered to vote increased by only 1.4 million.
The Labour tuition fees wheeze this morning is the most brilliant bit of fast political footwork since I don't know when, the perfect second part of the double whammy after May self-administered the first. Tories horrid to the old, Labour lovely to theytoung. Genius.
Agreed. Tories are getting mullered by labour in the campaign
I think that is easy to do when you are promising a literal moon on a stick.
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
LOL! A majority of 50, from where the Tories started and against Jezza, would be a disaster and leave Mrs May in a considerably weaker position from whence she started.
I'm not saying it will be as low as 50 - just that, really, nothing much is at stake even if it is.
Not sure 50 would be a big enough majority to get "bucket of dog sick" Dementia Tax through the House frankly.
Here’s Arnaud Masset of SwissBank on the pound’s drop this morning:
Sterling went under renewed pressure on Monday morning with Brexit negotiations expected to make a comeback this week.
The pound was the worst G10 performer as it slid 0.50% against the greenback with GBP/USD easing as low as $1.2967.
Over the last few days, the pound has been testing the 1.3000-50 resistance area as investors anticipated a strong Tory majority at the upcoming general election. However, their confidence has been damaged recently over Prime Minister Theresa May’s propositions to amend the social care system and revelations that its introduction was kept in the strictest confidence, putting into question the unity of the Conservative party.
Knowing that sterling has been rallying strongly on anticipation of a stronger Tory majority following the elections, investors are naturally trimming their bullish bets on the pound.
GBP/USD has returned below the 1.30 threshold and is heading towards the next support at around 1.29. We remain cautious on the GBP outlook, especially since the tone between the EU and UK has turned up as discussions surrounding the “divorce bill”
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
Labour HQ think they've done quite well this time wit a registration drive among the young, partly as a backlash from young people realising they disenfranchised themselves over Brexit. Obviously not all these new voters are Labour, but it's another straw in the wind, or straw to clutch, depending on one's mood:
How I miss Fred and RBS being eulogised by the SNP and New Labour!
What was it the SNP said over the takeover? There are so many nuggets to choose. Let’s starts with: “An enormous achievement for RBS that helped make Scotland an attractive place to do business”.
I am pleased Fred’s in court, because there are many questions still needing answers from that dark period.
But it's rubbish, she knows she will win seats rather than lose them. Even if she did lose 6 seats the DUP would support her and Corbyn wouldn't have enough seats to even form a coalition. Does she think people are stupid?
Comments
So you want people who lose their parents when they're younger to not only lose their parents but also lose a chunk of their inheritance to pay for people who have their parents around for longer.
How is that "fairer"?
Today's proposals by Labour may well lead to a fair few shy 2000-2012 graduate Tory votes...
It's a bit like the "bedroom tax", which "harmonised" housing benefit for council tenants with the existing arrangements for private tenants, but became a massive stick for the Tories all the same.
The IHT problem was that it started to impact a lot of people in the south of England who had gone through their lives never speaking to a financial advisor, were C1 and C2 who just happened to live somewhere where property prices skyrocketed. The 2007 Tory policy moved millions of votes almost overnight.
I support the proposed policy, but am open to looking at properly costed alternatives. It's not an easy subject and needs reasoned debate.
Precisely.
While the policy (if fully worked out), might on its own be defensible, it makes a nonsense of the Tory principles on inheritance tax.
I know May says she doesn't do political philosophy - but it appears that she doesn't do consistency either.
Social care is close to collapse. Councils are spending huge proportions of their budgets on social care, and so the other services they are offering are being pared to the bone.
In 5 years time, the present system will have collapsed, and so they probably realized they had to do something.
There is no real alternative but for some of the wealth possessed by the elderly in houses to be diverted to social care -- one way or another.
Labour manifesto: Life is tough. Money's free. Here is a jam tsunami. What's a deficit?
Meanwhile, in the Midlands marginals, 3/4 of the massive UKIP vote from 2015 is going Tory, and the working classes prefer Theresa May over IRA supporter Corbyn by a margin of two to one.
Agreed. And if those numbers don't work in the future, it's a darn sight easier to adjust them in future budgets.
If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
And there's absolutely no way corbyn is capable of running or implementing any of these things
They are idiots though.
They could even announce that now and say that they are readjusting the WFA means test to 35k (Which it probably was anyway) to pay for it in response to feedback.
When did the Tories last mention the deficit? The key word in that long-term economic plan turned out to be "long".
I think the problem is that most people simply don't know they can be almost completely wiped out by current rules. So being able to keep £100k doesn't sound like a gain, as mentally people are looking at their home's value and thinking something like "that's less than a third left!"
I suggested something similar yesterday.
Meanwhile, Betfair has gone mad this morning, the majority is now out to 1.13. (1/8 ish when commission deducted). Given the marginals polling, that's surely free money when we collectively agreed 1.11 was value yesterday?
Labour are doing it with a few billion on tuition fees for an extra year.
It's a joke, the whole thing.
Say they were set at a million pounds (Bear with me on this) and a million for each student is passed over to unis
The average student then pays back 100k say, which with inflation and so forth has an NPV of 50k over lifetime.
So basically the government loses out by 950k due to the loan structure.
OTOH fees of say £5,000 (Total) would pretty much be always recouped
What is the actual "inflexion point" here ?
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
Taken another nibble, mainly so I have something to console me if Corbyn wins.
But will be tradeable if the polls go the way I think over next three days or so.
Dementia-tax-gate is killing the Tories.
The Tories have electoral sticker-shock, it doesn't matter than £100k is more than £23k, for people in homes worth a lot more (and for most that will be their only substantial asset) either figure is horrifying. If there was a sensible limit to the maximum paid, people would think something like "that still leaves two thirds" or better.
https://www.corporate-adviser.com/17017-2/
A key mistake was basing the sums on the current world where the 25% of people who went to Uni in the 70s and 80s mostly have well paid secure jobs, with a future world where more than half of people have degrees and the labour market will be very different.
Some Labour fellow on the Today programme this morning making it clear that the only reason Labour are opposed to the social care proposals is because they want to impose a wealth tax on peoples' houses instead.
So rather than "dialling down the left-wing shit" in SeanT's phrase, they appear to be dialling it up.
The Tories should concentrate on pulling apart Labour's fantastical manifesto proposals and showing how much they will cost each and every one of us in higher tax - all those with pensions and savings or jobs in the finaancial services sector (and I don't just mean the City) will be hurt by the Financial Transactions Tax, all who buy goods or services from companies will be hurt by rises in corporation tax, all who have any sort of property or assets or savings will be hurt by a wealth tax, all who aspire to do well will be hurt by rises in income tax etc.
And our young will have ever more debt loaded onto them as a result of the increasing borrowing Labour plan.
That said, big majorities just leave a larger festering pool of malcontents who see their chances of advancing up the greasy pole just got that much more difficult.
A majority of 150 would have been fun, if only for the Labour casualties. A majority of 50 will get Brexit delivered, and now with a mandate to do stuff on care. And Jeremy Corbyn still asking Prime Minister's questions " I've received a letter from a Mrs. Trellis in north Wales..."
It's not squeaky bum time for the Tories yet... But if ICM shows a collapse in Con support things will start to get serious.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
E.g., there is a care home population of 300,000 paying 30k a year, so that means to completely pay for just the residential care component would be 9 billion a year. Many more people need in-home care, but it is less expensive per person -- I think I worked out another 15 billion.
So, I think just to pay for everything you need about 24 or 25 billion for the population today.
The LibDems 1p on income tax (and credit to them for suggesting it) will raise about 4 billion, I think. So, you can see if raised via income tax, this is a biggish hit.
It is not unaffordable, but probably impossible to get elected on such a platform.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/22/more-than-23m-people-have-registered-to-vote-since-election-was-called
If you're from Estonia or Romania, you can get a free degree from a British university as long as you don't get a PAYE job in the UK afterwards.
Are there any numbers for the 'Tory plan'?
For all the rhetoric about being progressive, Labour appear to be in a position of supporting free heating for millionaires whilst implementing £7bn worth of welfare cuts and free care for those with hundreds of thousands in assets paid for by people with none.
There is no sign that I can see of Labour upping the tax free threshold for low and middle pay earners either - so a tax rise on the lowest paid workers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39995254
If it's football then you've lost me, sorry.
As well as the EU students, there's also the British graduates who emigrate to consider - I live in Dubai (hence the name), and there's plenty of twenty-something Brits out here who have no intention of paying back their student loans. In the modern world it's very easy for someone to disappear from debts in another country.
The Tory manifesto is grown up, putting the future of the country and people above party politics.
Oh, and it makes the Lords opposing it pretty difficult too.
Here’s Arnaud Masset of SwissBank on the pound’s drop this morning:
Sterling went under renewed pressure on Monday morning with Brexit negotiations expected to make a comeback this week.
The pound was the worst G10 performer as it slid 0.50% against the greenback with GBP/USD easing as low as $1.2967.
Over the last few days, the pound has been testing the 1.3000-50 resistance area as investors anticipated a strong Tory majority at the upcoming general election. However, their confidence has been damaged recently over Prime Minister Theresa May’s propositions to amend the social care system and revelations that its introduction was kept in the strictest confidence, putting into question the unity of the Conservative party.
Knowing that sterling has been rallying strongly on anticipation of a stronger Tory majority following the elections, investors are naturally trimming their bullish bets on the pound.
GBP/USD has returned below the 1.30 threshold and is heading towards the next support at around 1.29. We remain cautious on the GBP outlook, especially since the tone between the EU and UK has turned up as discussions surrounding the “divorce bill”
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2017/may/22/rbs-shareholders-markets-trump-worries-greek-bailout-eurogroup-business-live
Register to vote, everyone.
https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote
What was it the SNP said over the takeover? There are so many nuggets to choose. Let’s starts with: “An enormous achievement for RBS that helped make Scotland an attractive place to do business”.
I am pleased Fred’s in court, because there are many questions still needing answers from that dark period.
Even if she did lose 6 seats the DUP would support her and Corbyn wouldn't have enough seats to even form a coalition. Does she think people are stupid?
So the joke doesn't really work very well.