Mr. Observer, I think you're misidentifying the flaw. It's stupidity.
Even if you believe this policy is right, the lack of preparation to defend obvious attacks a few weeks before an election that she called herself is reminiscent of the financial idiocy of people selling SIVs and CDOs without even understanding what they were.
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.
Having been brave to attach a large barnacle to the boat in the middle of the General Election, it now seems they are going to try and remove it asap...
Not impressed. This could alter my vote.... oh hang on, I haven't got one.
You have to laugh. One incompetent marxist fool, one inept spineless fool and Farron. Wow. What a choice
Exactly.
Thankfully it is only an election. Imagine if any of these people were trying to do something like negotiate a deal that will affect the country for the foreseeable future and affect all its political and trade relationships ....
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."
4 days ago Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, said the Conservative party dropped its previous plan for a cap on care costs after concluding that it would be unfair.
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."
4 days ago Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, said the Conservative party dropped its previous plan for a cap on care costs after concluding that it would be unfair.
Now its Tippex time
Strong and Stable my Arse
Ah, at least those millionaires have the majority of their assets protected. Makes you feel all warm inside, doesn't it?
Osborne doesn't know what a u-turn is, no wonder he was a bad politician.
I think we should be beginning to realise just how lucky we were to have Dave and George post 2010. Imagine where we would be with the current crop of clowns.
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."
4 days ago Jeremy Hunt, health secretary, said the Conservative party dropped its previous plan for a cap on care costs after concluding that it would be unfair.
Now its Tippex time
Strong and Stable my Arse
The EU is the big winner here. Even if May secures a decent-ish majority she looks weak and indecisive and easily pushed around.
If I were Labour I'd be hammering that point home for the next two and a half weeks.
You have to laugh. One incompetent marxist fool, one inept spineless fool and Farron. Wow. What a choice
Exactly.
Thankfully it is only an election. Imagine if any of these people were trying to do something like negotiate a deal that will affect the country for the foreseeable future and affect all its political and trade relationships ....
A comforting prospect. Nice to know our PM elect is made of stern stuff.
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.)
Also worth remembering that the Bank of Mum & Dad is now one of the top mortgage lenders - the last thing folks need is having to pay back Mum & Dad unexpectedly !!
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.
You're right. Tories need to get out there and defend the policy. Anything close to looking like a u-turn on it now is the worst of all worlds.
The policy is right, as it was when it was proposed. Get out there and sell it.
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.
You're right. Tories need to get out there and defend the policy. Anything close to looking like a u-turn on it now is the worst of all worlds.
The policy is right, as it was when it was proposed. Get out there and sell it.
The risk in doing that is that you have to be 100% sure that the leadership won't backtrack, otherwise you end up defending something that's both unpopular and no longer policy.
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.
The more basic problem is that the term "Dementia Tax" is sticking. Even people use it, who know it isn't really a tax on dementia. It's a lot like the Poll Tax - a policy that was drummed up on the spur of the moment without any consultation and which the Conservatives in that case as well felt they had to double down on.
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).
I do not think he will be voting Tory
Why does he believe that someone less fortunate than himself should pay for his mother's care?
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.
The more basic problem is that the term "Dementia Tax" is sticking. Even people use it, who know it isn't really a tax on dementia. It's a lot like the Poll Tax - a policy that was drummed up on the spur of the moment without any consultation and which the Conservatives in that case as well felt they had to double down on.
And it was the perception of trialling the Poll Tax in Scotland that contributed to the Tories becoming toxic there for a generation. Now it seems their approach is to insulate Wales and Scotland and test out their policies on England.
So thanks to pressure from the left, the middle classes's inheritances are safe ?
Strange times.
Suspect they heard it going down badly with tory voters in the south on the door step.
And in the south it makes no bloody difference. In the Midlands marginals its a good policy.
Not everyone in the south lives in a mansion. Wht on earth should we pay more for our houses and then pay more in dementia tax. It's unfair, poorly presented and worst of all incredibly stupid.
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.
The more basic problem is that the term "Dementia Tax" is sticking. Even people use it, who know it isn't really a tax on dementia. It's a lot like the Poll Tax - a policy that was drummed up on the spur of the moment without any consultation and which the Conservatives in that case as well felt they had to double down on.
Actually, the Poll Tax went through a lot of development - though fatally among policy wonks and the like. Willlam Waldegrave's memoirs are very good on it.
If it's retained, I suspect that like the Bedroom Tax, the phrase will fall into disuse because it's not a tax and it's not obvious when it's being paid (ironically, unlike the Community Charge, which *was* a tax and should always have been labelled as such).
However, it won't fall into use over the next three weeks.
At least Theresa May is out there fighting (and hopefully still winning) where-as Osborne is just a washed up has-been throwing rocks from the sidelines.
At least Theresa May is out there fighting (and hopefully still winning) where-as Osborne is just a washed up has-been throwing rocks from the sidelines.
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).
I do not think he will be voting Tory
Why does he believe that someone less fortunate than himself should pay for his mother's care?
You are missing the point. People, in general, do not think in the abstract. They first of all think how something will affect them and those nearest and dearest to them. Very few think, "Well... it will be hell for me, but the country will benefit so that is OK"
He has already given his job to help her and become a full time carer and his siblings are helping as they can so he is already paying for her care and she may still need to go to a home and if she does then all this sacrifice will have the added insult of making him homeless.
Do you think that he is going to sign up for a policy like that? Regardless of what it does for the economy or public finances?
@PolhomeEditor: That T May U-turn in full: "That consultation will include an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs."
Yes.... The Conservatives like going in for consultations, don`t they? Then they ignore them afterwards, and carry on doing what they had in mind in the first place. We need more than "a consultation" from Mrs May.
I would be extremely disappointed if the Tories reverse this policy though, from what I can see, this is only being suggested by a newspaper editor with a vendetta against May.
It increases the worst case scenario from the estate only receiving £23,000 to only receiving £100,000 so, if you insist on calling it a tax, that tax burden has just reduced by £77,000
Anyone who cares about this issue already knows this and anyone who doesn't, well it's not going to change their vote is it?
So they won't tell us what the threshold will be for losing Winter Fuel Allowance. And now they say there will be a cap for the Dementia Tax, but won't say what it is.
Most people can just assume that they will lose their WFH and that the cap will be more than the value of their home, so they will still get screwed twice-over by The Nasty Party.
At least Theresa May is out there fighting (and hopefully still winning) where-as Osborne is just a washed up has-been throwing rocks from the sidelines.
He propelled the Tories into Government. And Tezza looks like she might reverse that
So they won't tell us what the threshold will be for losing Winter Fuel Allowance. And now they say there will be a cap for the Dementia Tax, but won't say what it is.
Most people can just assume that they will lose their WFH and that the cap will be more than the value of their home, so they will still get screwed twice-over by The Nasty Party.
If she is U-turning I assume ICM is going to be brutal for the Tories when it's released shortly.
How is ICM due "shortly" to be affected by today's events? The worst that can happen is, it shows a tory surge and enthusiastic cross-party support for dementia tax. I think we can rule that out.
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).
I do not think he will be voting Tory
Why does he believe that someone less fortunate than himself should pay for his mother's care?
You are missing the point. People, in general, do not think in the abstract. They first of all think how something will affect them and those nearest and dearest to them. Very few think, "Well... it will be hell for me, but the country will benefit so that is OK"
He has already given his job to help her and become a full time carer and his siblings are helping as they can so he is already paying for her care and she may still need to go to a home and if she does then all this sacrifice will have the added insult of making him homeless.
Do you think that he is going to sign up for a policy like that? Regardless of what it does for the economy or public finances?
What do you think the present policy is?
I can tell you.
If she needs to go in a home tomorrow, then the flat will be have to be sold to pay the care home bills.
At least Theresa May is out there fighting (and hopefully still winning) where-as Osborne is just a washed up has-been throwing rocks from the sidelines.
He propelled the Tories into Government. And Tezza looks like she might reverse that
Actually Cameron and Osborne nearly blew the 2010 election. Against Gordon Brown and the worst recession since the 1930's...
Comments
Mr. Observer, I think you're misidentifying the flaw. It's stupidity.
Even if you believe this policy is right, the lack of preparation to defend obvious attacks a few weeks before an election that she called herself is reminiscent of the financial idiocy of people selling SIVs and CDOs without even understanding what they were.
Not impressed. This could alter my vote.... oh hang on, I haven't got one.
This kipper is a laugh isn't he...
https://twitter.com/oflynnmep/status/866602441231540225
Thanks lefties!
Thankfully it is only an election. Imagine if any of these people were trying to do something like negotiate a deal that will affect the country for the foreseeable future and affect all its political and trade relationships ....
Now its Tippex time
Strong and Stable my Arse
Was the beginning of the end for him.
"Tories are definitely going to get a massive majority guaranteed fact" stance now
If I were Labour I'd be hammering that point home for the next two and a half weeks.
Anything close to looking like a u-turn on it now is the worst of all worlds.
The policy is right, as it was when it was proposed. Get out there and sell it.
https://twitter.com/StewartWood/status/866604302646771712
https://twitter.com/guidofawkes/status/866604971931959296
Lab has peaked IMO TMICIPM
The Scot Leaders debate was almost entirely devolved matters.
Jezza's a sell out!!
Jeez.
Will not go away unless more specific
When is the U turn on this U turn
If it's retained, I suspect that like the Bedroom Tax, the phrase will fall into disuse because it's not a tax and it's not obvious when it's being paid (ironically, unlike the Community Charge, which *was* a tax and should always have been labelled as such).
However, it won't fall into use over the next three weeks.
@davies_will: And off she went with a Trumpetty Trump - Trump, Trump, Trump twitter.com/joncstone/stat…
At least Theresa May is out there fighting (and hopefully still winning) where-as Osborne is just a washed up has-been throwing rocks from the sidelines.
He has already given his job to help her and become a full time carer and his siblings are helping as they can so he is already paying for her care and she may still need to go to a home and if she does then all this sacrifice will have the added insult of making him homeless.
Do you think that he is going to sign up for a policy like that? Regardless of what it does for the economy or public finances?
It increases the worst case scenario from the estate only receiving £23,000 to only receiving £100,000 so, if you insist on calling it a tax, that tax burden has just reduced by £77,000
Anyone who cares about this issue already knows this and anyone who doesn't, well it's not going to change their vote is it?
Most people can just assume that they will lose their WFH and that the cap will be more than the value of their home, so they will still get screwed twice-over by The Nasty Party.
Back the Tories at 1-4 in Value of Clwyd (SkyBet), and Labour in Delyn at 4-1 (Bet365)
When it leaves people completely in doubt how much the Dementia Tax Maximum spend will be.
Nothing more needed to be said.
https://twitter.com/kateemccann/status/866607464061513728
That would have been rather brutal 30 mins of TV for her
I can tell you.
If she needs to go in a home tomorrow, then the flat will be have to be sold to pay the care home bills.
@IanDunt: She's Remain then Leave. She says there won't be election then there will. She wants to break a manifesto commitment on tax then retain it.