What grads need is for Jezzas plan to include a waiving of existing student debt, rather than just prospectively. Otherwise we will have a uniquely penalised generation.
Yes, that occurred to me - a real election-winner there, not to be confused with a bribe . It would however be a leeetle bit expensive, and McDonnell is actually trying to make the manifesto reasonably free of black holes. He's such a boring centrist...
On Tory direction, as Richard says they have a choice this week, with most postal votes arriving in the next couple of days:
1. Argue the case over pensioners. No, it's not a threat to your home, well, no more of a threat than we already have, oh you didn't know? Well, it's like this, pay attention. And the WFA shouldn't go to millionaires, unless they're Scottish millionaires. And the change to the double lock will save a lot of money, but actually won't affect you because inflation is going over 2.5% anyway.
2. Change the subject to Brexit. That's what the election is about, dammit. Stop trying to talk about other stuff, like our manifesto. We shall insist on something, though we can't exactly say what, and we'll be firm and fierce just like 52% of you, and it may cost money but we reserve the right to put your taxes up to pay for it, and no, we won't say how much. Concentrate on how strong and stable we are, like we've shown this week.
3. Change the subject toi the IRA. 40 years ago, Corbyn may or maybe not have been previously on the editorial board of a magazine that you've never heard of which published a nasty jibe about Norman Tebbit, OK so Corbyn wasn't on the board then but anyway, he met Sinn Fein people before the Queen did and it shows he was a terrorist sympathiser, and this election isn't about Brexit and it isn't about what we'll do, it's about stopping Corbyn, that's why we called it three years early, see?
Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.
Nick - I think this is the best post from you that I've ever read!
"Currently more than £10 billion is loaned to students each year. This is likely to grow rapidly over the new few years and the Government expected the value of outstanding loans to reach over £100 billion (2014-15 prices) in 2018"
What happens to the £100bn and the 9% graduate tax (loan repayments) that already exist?
Why is it fair that people who chose to take a different career path - especially the lower paid - subsidise those who go to university?
Yeah, there is no way a £100bn book is going to cost nothing to cancel.
It depends what you mean by nothing. As already discussed, a huge chunk will never be repaid anyway, there will be a large nominal cost but no actual cost for that bit. As with the dementia tax, the presentation might be worse than the policy. Just pluck a number from thin air and run with it; it is what the government has been doing for years.
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it
No Overall Majority bets coming into view? 10 on BF.
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it
If he is that lucid, and of an age where Devon Loch is the natural analogy, he prob has little to fear from dementia.
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two options
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
Inheritance tax is often labelled a 'death tax'. Isn't the implication of the dementia tax that we will slowly move to a true death tax where the more expensively you die, the more you pay?
It isn't a tax, it's a credit card - consolidate your pesky home care debts onto one 0% interest card and pay nothing till you pop your clogs. To an uber rightist these are just costs for which you are liable in the same way as you are liable to pay to have your car serviced; to the squidgy centre they have an NHS type vibe and should be free at point of supply. I think many people, including me, are more taken aback by what they have learnt in the last 48 hours about how things work now, than by what changes TM proposes to make. Just dreadful presentation from her.
I saw the care bill being equated to tuition fees on another site earlier.
You get the service free at the point of delivery, run up a loan and end up paying it back if you can afford it.
I maintain that simply changing the threshold would kill it as a political issue. I'd Link the protecton level to national or regional average house prices.
Inheritance tax is often labelled a 'death tax'. Isn't the implication of the dementia tax that we will slowly move to a true death tax where the more expensively you die, the more you pay?
It isn't a tax, it's a credit card - consolidate your pesky home care debts onto one 0% interest card and pay nothing till you pop your clogs. To an uber rightist these are just costs for which you are liable in the same way as you are liable to pay to have your car serviced; to the squidgy centre they have an NHS type vibe and should be free at point of supply. I think many people, including me, are more taken aback by what they have learnt in the last 48 hours about how things work now, than by what changes TM proposes to make.
It would be interesting to know how the appallingly unfair present system got established in the first place.
I know from rooting around on the Alzheimer’s Society page, that the present system was in place in 2008, as they have a booklet called The Dementia Tax with that date on it.
Is this a New Labour Policy? Or does it go as far back as Major? Or has it always been like this with dementia sufferers paying for their care down to their last 27k?
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Exactly. I want urgent answers to these types of questions.
What about disabled daughters who live with their elderly mother who then needs to go into a home (the mother that is)?
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it
If he is that lucid, and of an age where Devon Loch is the natural analogy, he prob has little to fear from dementia.
Don't spoil it from the coalition of chaos (the Chumocracy / Corbyn alliance).
They haven't been so frothy since private polling by hedge funds showed "Remain" was going to win by a landslide.
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two options
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
Under the proposals I think it is only paid upon death. Not sure how it works at present.
Edit: Oh, you mean when it is due. Yeah, good question. I can't imagine they would let them hold off paying for another 20-30 years.
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two options
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
Under the proposals I think it is only paid upon death. Not sure how it works at present.
How many conversations like this are going on all over UK?
Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.
The smartest approach would be to try to elide the fightback on the social care policy with their main campaign message (remember 'strong and stable', anyone?). For a textbook example of how to do that, listen to Ken Clarke's interview on yesterday's R4 World this Weekend.
However, not many politicians are class acts like Ken Clarke, and it's difficult to do without getting very wordy and sounding defensive.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.
Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.
It would be ironic if the woman whose modus operandi is to do everything in the opposite way to Cameron were brought down by an over-reliance on a 37 year old SPAD.
The Dementia Tax seems a curious and unforced error. Was it simple laziness borne of hubris and complacency?
It's really very odd. Unless they have game played this and found that in some water the approach taken maximises vote efficiency
You'd like to think so...but the flat-footedness of the response (and indeed, the initial framing) does suggest that is perhaps not the case....
I can sort of see how it came about. The opposition are framing you as only for the few, in it for themselves. So you come up with a measure that is about FAIRNESS - no way you could say the Tories are only about looking after their own if they are scrapping Winter Fuel Payments to millionaires, or making the well off pay for their kids' school meals, or ensuring that everybody can pass £100k on to their nearest and dearest, regardless of how much they have to spend on their end-of-life care costs.
All of which should work well in those Midlands/Northern marginals. Unless your opponents get their take on your policy out first....
One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.
It would be ironic if the woman whose modus operandi is to do everything in the opposite way to Cameron were brought down by an over-reliance on a 37 year old SPAD.
I can't imagine any SPA responsible for this is 37 years old. 27 perhaps..
The Dementia Tax seems a curious and unforced error. Was it simple laziness borne of hubris and complacency?
It's bizarre. She wanted a mandate for Brexit and instead has campaigned solely on pissing off her own support base. It's really very odd. Unless they have game played this and found that in some way the approach taken maximises vote efficiency
I don't think Theresa May is interested in Brexit. Which is worrying.
In fact not many people at the top level in politics are interested in Brexit. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is either. David Davis obviously is. Tim Farron is, much good that's doing him.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.
Trawlerman? How dare you! I demand satisfaction.
I thought i was being unduly kind given some of your trolling re certain football teams in certain headers...
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.
I was flabbergasted when someone posted a statement from the IFS casting doubt on whether the Conservatives' proposed changes will raise any extra money at all!
Residential care is expensive, and they are leaving such folks with an extra £76k when the average equity in property probably isn't much above £100k to begin with. Balanced by the saving by making people with more equity than that pay towards home care.
Given that May has cooked this up herself in private, it really is a key question for Mr Neil tonight to be asking about the numbers. Abbot has set the benchmark for Mrs M to beat...
Yes.
I didn't mean I was flabbergasted because it seemed self-evident from the numbers that it would raise extra money - it was more that I didn't think they would have proposed something so potentially unpopular if the benefit to the public finances was so marginal.
The benefit to the Exchequer is massive, based on in-home care now becoming chargeable for all with property assets. £10bn a year over time seems to be the consensus here.
The reason I originally said I was flabbergasted is that the IFS apparently wasn't sure whether there would be any net benefit to the Exchequer.
I agree it's monumentally stupid. If better lines were ready to defend it (raising the amount left from 23-100k, ensuring nobody has to sell their home etc) it'd at least be less bad, but the lack of though on an emotive policy area a few weeks before polling day, inserted at the last minute despite protests, not war-gamed at all, is just incredible.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.
Trawlerman? How dare you! I demand satisfaction.
I thought i was being unduly kind given some of your trolling re certain football teams in certain headers...
Terrible politics if correct. Accept the hit and secure the strong and stable vote, don't blow that as well! This must be going down horrifically on the doorstep............
For anyone who thinks things could not get worse: what hasn't been dwelt on is that you only get the benefit of the last £100,000 being ringfenced if you need a carer because you are ill (with dementia or whatever); if you have care simply because you are old and weak (but otherwise healthy) you don't. Lovely discussions between the LA and the recently bereaved on the lines of "Sorry love, your mum was a bit confused and incontinent, but not confused and incontinent enough to count as dementia."
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Then only the 51% is liable for the costs. Presumably there is detail to be worked out, but typically you would expect that the government would have a right to sell the house once his mother passes on. (Any coinvestment like this would include the right to force a sale). He would receive 49% + at least £100K (assuming no other dependents)
and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
Actually it probably would cost almost nothing to put a cap on it, especially if it refers only to care in the home, which is unlikely to cost megabucks for any individual - it's long term care in residential homes which is potentially the real money sink for individuals.
Still, it's entertaining to see that protecting the wealth of the heirs of the well-off is such a priority for so many that it requires a U-turn.
One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...
@BBCPhilipSim: Kezia Dugdale says SNP were "confronted with reality" in #LeadersDebate, and responded with "smear campaign" and "their usual dirty tricks"
@JamieRoss7: Dugdale on last night's "smear campaign" from the SNP. "They tried their usual dirty tricks but it won't work this time."
One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...
Come off it (to quote Adam boulton), this is panic
What is the size of the Tory headbanger contingent (and also the size of the hardcore wets as well). How big does the majority need to be to totally marginalise them?
@PolhomeEditor: Looks like Theresa May will announce a social care cap shortly. That's a climbdown on last week's manifesto. Not very strong and stable.
@steve_hawkes: George Osborne's tweet of course came just before Theresa May was due to begin speaking in Wales
One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...
Come off it (to quote Adam boulton), this is panic
@BBCPhilipSim: Kezia Dugdale says SNP were "confronted with reality" in #LeadersDebate, and responded with "smear campaign" and "their usual dirty tricks"
@JamieRoss7: Dugdale on last night's "smear campaign" from the SNP. "They tried their usual dirty tricks but it won't work this time."
Sky’s Faisal Islam says the Conservatives’ green paper on social care, due after the election, will include plans for a cap.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
Sky’s Faisal Islam says the Conservatives’ green paper on social care, due after the election, will include plans for a cap.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
For anyone who thinks things could not get worse: what hasn't been dwelt on is that you only get the benefit of the last £100,000 being ringfenced if you need a carer because you are ill (with dementia or whatever); if you have care simply because you are old and weak (but otherwise healthy) you don't. Lovely discussions between the LA and the recently bereaved on the lines of "Sorry love, your mum was a bit confused and incontinent, but not confused and incontinent enough to count as dementia."
This whole area is so incredibly difficult. We save during our life - principally - to ensure that we can afford to live when we are no longer able to work. But thanks to a multi-decade housing boom, parents are often sitting on massive amounts of "equity", and the children want to inherit. (Not least because they are typically sitting on large mortgages.)
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?
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.
I was flabbergasted when someone posted a statement from the IFS casting doubt on whether the Conservatives' proposed changes will raise any extra money at all!
I think it is possible, because May’s system produces winners and losers. We are hearing a lot from the losers at the moment.
The gainers are the people in residential care who pay virtually the full whack at the moment and will in future pay only down to their last 100k. The losers are those with in-home care, because now their house will be included in the assets, and they will pay more.
This is consistent with little extra money being raised, but the existing financial pain being more fairly balanced between those in residential care and those receiving home care.
Winners never want to crow too much (we're British after all) it's always the losers you hear from.
In a way it's a shame sensible policy proposals in this country e.g Hammond's plan to equalise N.I contributions between employed and self employed workers was another one are inevitably blocked because of the moaning of the losers. Backbench Tory MP's are some of the worst ninnies out there. It's time they (and we) faced up to some hard choices.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?
You heard it from me last night.. i was told that there were candidates prepared to resign over this...
I bet the Tories wish they could all climb into a time machine right about now and go back to last Thursday morning. Dear oh dear, what a fucking mess.
From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!
I agree. This is turning toxic.
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)
Then only the 51% is liable for the costs. Presumably there is detail to be worked out, but typically you would expect that the government would have a right to sell the house once his mother passes on. (Any coinvestment like this would include the right to force a sale). He would receive 49% + at least £100K (assuming no other dependents)
So he will lose his house but get some money? He has three siblings none of whom have any rights to the house (they all agreed that).
So, a spread bet on what the cap will be: opening mid-price £150k?
100k, to make it easy to remember. "Whatever happens, you will never spend more than 100k on care, and whatever happens, you will always have at least 100k to pass on to your loved ones."
and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
Actually it probably would cost almost nothing to put a cap on it, especially if it refers only to care in the home, which is unlikely to cost megabucks for any individual - it's long term care in residential homes which is potentially the real money sink for individuals.
Still, it's entertaining to see that protecting the wealth of the heirs of the well-off is such a priority for so many that it requires a U-turn.
Don't want to sound Marie Antoinette, but for the sort of sums we appear to be talking about (£11,000 a year?) you aren't that well off if you can't cover that out of income and/or selling off the contents of your ISAs. So it's ingenious: it firms up the politics of envy vote by looking as if it panders to the rich, while at the same time actually doing most damage to the only borderline well-off who (unlike the rich) have little or no inbuilt tendency to vote Con.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?
They must wish they could flush the entire manifesto down the U-bend and try again.
I'm not sure that the opposite of 'Stong & Stable' is 'Weak & Wonky'.
won·ky (wŏng′kē) adj. won·ki·er, won·ki·est Chiefly British 1. Shaky or unsteady: a wonky table. 2. Out of alignment; crooked: "The door itself looked wonky somehow, not quite square with the building" (Steve Augarde). 3. Not functioning properly or normally: wonky digestion; a wonky phone connection. 4. Mentally unbalanced; crazy.
Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.
The smartest approach would be to try to elide the fightback on the social care policy with their main campaign message (remember 'strong and stable', anyone?). For a textbook example of how to do that, listen to Ken Clarke's interview on yesterday's R4 World this Weekend.
However, not many politicians are class acts like Ken Clarke, and it's difficult to do without getting very wordy and sounding defensive.
Yes, I think you're right. But saying "OK, OK, we'll put a cap on it already, details after the election, calm down ffs" doesn't do it. What will happen is that people will start picking holes in the cap (cf. Beverley and Dyedwoolie instantly on this thread) and we'll still be arguing about it for a couple more days. I think the media will get bored and move on by Wednresday, but that's five days on the subject.
The thing is that it's complicated. Offer a simple answer and its gets picked apart. Offer a complicated answer and it sounds defensive. Ken Clarke has a natural authority that helps him do it, but not many politicians do.
Comments
It didn't help Michael Foot though .
@BBCVickiYoung: Theresa May arrives in Wrexham - fox hunting protestor is bundled away by police #GE2017
Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.
(I thought of that line last night and have been waiting for the moment...)
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
You get the service free at the point of delivery, run up a loan and end up paying it back if you can afford it.
I maintain that simply changing the threshold would kill it as a political issue. I'd Link the protecton level to national or regional average house prices.
I know from rooting around on the Alzheimer’s Society page, that the present system was in place in 2008, as they have a booklet called The Dementia Tax with that date on it.
Is this a New Labour Policy? Or does it go as far back as Major? Or has it always been like this with dementia sufferers paying for their care down to their last 27k?
What about disabled daughters who live with their elderly mother who then needs to go into a home (the mother that is)?
Don't spoil it from the coalition of chaos (the Chumocracy / Corbyn alliance).
They haven't been so frothy since private polling by hedge funds showed "Remain" was going to win by a landslide.
Edit: Oh, you mean when it is due. Yeah, good question. I can't imagine they would let them hold off paying for another 20-30 years.
However, not many politicians are class acts like Ken Clarke, and it's difficult to do without getting very wordy and sounding defensive.
I can sort of see how it came about. The opposition are framing you as only for the few, in it for themselves. So you come up with a measure that is about FAIRNESS - no way you could say the Tories are only about looking after their own if they are scrapping Winter Fuel Payments to millionaires, or making the well off pay for their kids' school meals, or ensuring that everybody can pass £100k on to their nearest and dearest, regardless of how much they have to spend on their end-of-life care costs.
All of which should work well in those Midlands/Northern marginals. Unless your opponents get their take on your policy out first....
In fact not many people at the top level in politics are interested in Brexit. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is either. David Davis obviously is. Tim Farron is, much good that's doing him.
That was in August 1990.
Carried Dick Cheney, then US Defense Secretary, this was shortly after Iraq has invaded Kuwait.
King Fahd had accepted the need for foreign troops in Saudi Arabia and Israel was told they had to keep quiet if Iraq provoked them.
I agree it's monumentally stupid. If better lines were ready to defend it (raising the amount left from 23-100k, ensuring nobody has to sell their home etc) it'd at least be less bad, but the lack of though on an emotive policy area a few weeks before polling day, inserted at the last minute despite protests, not war-gamed at all, is just incredible.
Political hero: Joseph Chamberlain. 230 seat swing against the Tories in the 1906 election.
It's a CLARIFICATION.
Still, it's entertaining to see that protecting the wealth of the heirs of the well-off is such a priority for so many that it requires a U-turn.
Maybe they've been working out how much a cap would cost.
@BBCPhilipSim: Kezia Dugdale says SNP were "confronted with reality" in #LeadersDebate, and responded with "smear campaign" and "their usual dirty tricks"
@JamieRoss7: Dugdale on last night's "smear campaign" from the SNP. "They tried their usual dirty tricks but it won't work this time."
Because the Lady is for turning.
@steve_hawkes: George Osborne's tweet of course came just before Theresa May was due to begin speaking in Wales
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/866599988415139840
https://twitter.com/reutersuk/status/866600157692952576
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/866601017256931328
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/866600629166321665
In a way it's a shame sensible policy proposals in this country e.g Hammond's plan to equalise N.I contributions between employed and self employed workers was another one are inevitably blocked because of the moaning of the losers. Backbench Tory MP's are some of the worst ninnies out there. It's time they (and we) faced up to some hard choices.
Strange times.
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/866598171245457408
I do not think he will be voting Tory
won·ky (wŏng′kē)
adj. won·ki·er, won·ki·est Chiefly British
1. Shaky or unsteady: a wonky table.
2. Out of alignment; crooked: "The door itself looked wonky somehow, not quite square with the building" (Steve Augarde).
3. Not functioning properly or normally: wonky digestion; a wonky phone connection.
4. Mentally unbalanced; crazy.
OK, maybe you're right.
The thing is that it's complicated. Offer a simple answer and its gets picked apart. Offer a complicated answer and it sounds defensive. Ken Clarke has a natural authority that helps him do it, but not many politicians do.