May still got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher
So that's going to be the litany for the next five years. 42% - you got that in 1966 and lost by nearly a hundred so vote share is meaningless.
What those of us with a scintilla of political nous recognise is the huge open gaping self-inflicted wound. A hubristic election called for no other reason than to get a big majority and crush Labour (how we laughed at the thought of Ed Miliband losing his seat !) backfired disastrously.
Like a wounded animal, the Conservative Government staggers on, limping from crisis to crisis, weakening by the day and by the month. May's authority has gone, she is diminished and even the Cabinet hover around like jackals picking lumps out of what's left of her authority and credibility.
Eventually, the voters will be given the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace and everyone will be glad to put the Conservatives out of our misery.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
+1
The Tories have been captured by an unholy coalition of corporatist big business and Brexit Little Englander nutjobs. Neither has anything to offer to the struggling employee or small businessperson upon whom our future prosperity depends.
Well this small business person thinks you are talking rubbish as far as Brexit is concerned. I am doing very well out if overseas work thank you and it has improved substantially over the last year.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
Indeed. As I mentioned previously I gave now saved enough to make sure neither of my kids need borrow from the state for tuition fees. It has taken some smsll sacrifices but really nothing terrible.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
Indeed. As I mentioned previously I gave now saved enough to make sure neither of my kids need borrow from the state for tuition fees. It has taken some smsll sacrifices but really nothing terrible.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
If that's your vision of a fair or reasonable society, I will pass, thank you...
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB young professionals come from AB middle class homes (with a few exceptions) and while they may find it harder to get on the housing ladder than their parents did, although house prices have started to fall, most will also get a far bigger inheritance than their parents did too (helped by Osborne's inheritance tax cut and the fact May has had to dump the dementia tax)
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
If that's your vision of a fair or reasonable society, I will pass, thank you...
The idea that you should be critical of parents helping their children to improve their lives is quite stunning. If that is what you really believe then you really are a very warped man and not one I would want as part of any reasonable society.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly shed to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get ody got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Yes, there was definitely an element of this.
But the ABCDE system is about the job you do rather than what n.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the
What I don't understand, HYUFD, is why you respond to reasonable posts, with straw men / hyperbole.
The post you responded to said;
"Even if you have parents willing to stump up 30-50k as a deposit, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom shoebox in London for 300k now and would still need an income of 60k a year."
Perhaps that's specific to central london, but it's no exaggeration.
But you read that and replied with ^;
"The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid"
With respect, it's a bit silly and really not constructive.
Well it may have been hyperbole but the point is unless you earn a very high income you will not be able to buy in central London now, so move further out and commute in. We also have not mentioned part ownership, which has got a work colleague in an average salary on the housing ladder in Outer London without any assistance from his parents
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
City apartment - short commute, bars and restaurants, noise and pollution Suburban house - middling commute, zzzzz Rural house - long commute, fresh air and open spaces, bored kids
The clear answer is to buy one of each.
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
Which is why the ABC / DE classification is meaningless now.
It's perfectly possible to be, say, a highly educated graduate working in an 'a' or 'b' job and still be unable to afford property in London and the South East. Which is where most of the jobs, certainly most of the high paying jobs are.
The class divide now is between those who are able to afford property, largely through inheritance, and those who are unable.
I suspect the large number of AB types voting Labour are the ones who are unable to - they see themselves as high earners and wonder why they don't have the same living standards as their parents.
2017 was about the children of the middle classes wondering where the middle class lifestyles they were promised have vanished to.
Most of those AB types voting Labour could afford to get on the property ladder with help from mummy and daddy, apart from voting against hard Brexit they were voting for free tuition fees and to ensure that if mummy or daddy got dementia they did not miss out on a big inheritance from their estate because of the dementia tax
Well, if mummy or daddy went into residential care, they would have been voting to ensure they _did_ miss out on their inheritance, because in that case the "dementia tax" would have been a "dementia rebate"!
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
Except the biggest poll surge for Corbyn in the entire campaign came when he effectively said working class taxpayers should pay to protect the future inheritance of middle class children if their parents get dementia
'Well, if mummy or daddy went into residential care, they would have been voting to ensure they _did_ miss out on their inheritance, because in that case the "dementia tax" would have been a "dementia rebate"!'
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
'Well, if mummy or daddy went into residential care, they would have been voting to ensure they _did_ miss out on their inheritance, because in that case the "dementia tax" would have been a "dementia rebate"!'
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Along with the implied dropping of the idea of a cap in either case
Normally you rent or buy the first in your 20s, you buy the second in your mid 30s and the last in your early 60s
Actually, your post sums up the tories problem.
Your "normally" - became "bloody difficult" and is now "utterly impossible" for all but those with substantial inherited wealth or wages in the top few %;
A disappointingly glib and cynical view. Even in these times of more limited social mobility, people do make it into middle class jobs from disadvantaged backgrounds. They just don't have the chance to get the lifestyle that would have gone with it twenty years ago, thanks largely to Conservative blindness to the rising levels of captial inequality.
The vast majority of AB )
You seem to forget that with current life expectancy, relying on inheritance to get onto the property ladder will take many people into their own retirement years. Cf. Prince Charles.
Not entirely, plenty of parents give assistance well before that with deposits to get on the housing ladder, funding for costs of living at university, weddings, school fees etc
Indeed. As I mentioned previously I gave now saved enough to make sure neither of my kids need borrow from the state for tuition fees. It has taken some smsll sacrifices but really nothing terrible.
I find it difficult with Fox jr.
I am reluctant to pay of his uni debt (and not in a position to do so for a couple of years), but if I did, then there was either a graduate tax for him to pay anyway, or a forgiving of the debt by a Corbyn government, then it would be money down the drain. It is also possible that he may emigrate.
Probably better to give him the money to spend as he sees fit, and keep paying the 9% extra for his graduate debt.
The paradox of it is that the system is rigged against early repayment, though the steep rise in interest rate to Inflation plus 3% does mean that it is a life weighed down with the chains of debt slavery.
May still got 42%, the highest Tory voteshare since Thatcher
So that's going to be the litany for the next five years. 42% - you got that in 1966 and lost by nearly a hundred so vote share is meaningless.
What those of us with a scintilla of political nous recognise is the huge open gaping self-inflicted wound. A hubristic election called for no other reason than to get a big majority and crush Labour (how we laughed at the thought of Ed Miliband losing his seat !) backfired disastrously.
Like a wounded animal, the Conservative Government staggers on, limping from crisis to crisis, weakening by the day and by the month. May's authority has gone, she is diminished and even the Cabinet hover around like jackals picking lumps out of what's left of her authority and credibility.
Eventually, the voters will be given the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace and everyone will be glad to put the Conservatives out of our misery.
Could you highlight the bits of that which are evidence of political nous?
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
Uni fees are the Osborne Poll Tax
Gordon Brown introduced Uni fees in 1998
Osborne tripled them
But made the repayments more progressive...
none of it is progressive
taxing young people for learning is a fking stupid idea
On thread, I don't think the ABC1 C2DE classification is very helpful. I think it should be as follows:
AB - Managers and senior professionals C1 - Young professionals C2D - Working class E (pensioners) E (in work benefits)
I suspect Lab are doing better with the C1s than the ABs
What a confusing post. If you want to change the classifications (and it's not a bad idea; age and educational achievements should probably be in there) it would help if you also changed the signifiers, even if only by writing them in lower case. Is the final sentence about the trad classifications or your new ones?
What I mean is the socio-economic groups are as follows:
A- Higher managerial, administrative, professional e.g. Chief executive, senior civil servant, surgeon
B - Intermediate managerial, administrative, professional e.g. bank manager, teacher
C1- Supervisory, clerical, junior managerial e.g. shop floor supervisor, bank clerk, sales person
C2 - Skilled manual workers e.g. electrician, carpenter
D- Semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers e.g. assembly line worker, refuse collector, messenger
E - Casual labourers, pensioners, unemployed e.g. pensioners without private pensions and anyone living on basic benefits
What I mean is that I think rolling these groups in to just 2 - ABC1 and C2DE is unhelpful. There ought to be enough sample size to show AB separately for C1. I suspect Labour is doing better with C1 than AB as C1s tend to be younger.
If you were going to do a matrix with age as well you could divide into 5 groups:
Younger middle class Older middle class Younger working class Older working class Pensioners
Better breakdown is AB-C1-C2-DE
Demographically these work out as about a quarter of the population each.
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Well, yes, it's hardly a surprise that giving out money is less "contentious" than raising it!
Nevertheless, in effect it would be a redistribution from one group of potential inheritors to another. The group whose parents need domiciliary care would be disadvantaged, and the groups whose parents need residential care would benefit.
I thought the way this issue was reduced to the level of a misleading caricature was one of the most depressing things about the election campaign.
Sinking it in is what depresses me so much. Not that people think that way, but that things have switched around so extremely for reasons I cannot understand.
I am reluctant to pay of his uni debt (and not in a position to do so for a couple of years), but if I did, then there was either a graduate tax for him to pay anyway, or a forgiving of the debt by a Corbyn government, then it would be money down the drain. It is also possible that he may emigrate.
Probably better to give him the money to spend as he sees fit, and keep paying the 9% extra for his graduate debt.
The paradox of it is that the system is rigged against early repayment, though the steep rise in interest rate to Inflation plus 3% does mean that it is a life weighed down with the chains of debt slavery.
I have put away £100 a month for each of my two kids since they were born. Even with it invested very conservatively that is enough to cover fees for them. If they choose not to go the University route then it is a deposit on a house. We have had to forego expensive foreign holidays for cheaper but just as enjoyable British or near European holidays but that really is no sacrifice.
It has other benefits beyond simply giving them money. It shows them what cab be achieved by just some very basic saving. It also teaches them the benefit of not relying on the State for hangouts or loans. Most importantly it means they will not come out of university thinking debt is something normal or acceptable which is surely the terrible lesson student loans are teaching whole generations now.
'Well, if mummy or daddy went into residential care, they would have been voting to ensure they _did_ miss out on their inheritance, because in that case the "dementia tax" would have been a "dementia rebate"!'
'Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Along with the implied dropping of the idea of a cap in either case'
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Well, yes, it's hardly a surprise that giving out money is less "contentious" than raising it!
Nevertheless, in effect it would be a redistribution from one group of potential inheritors to another. The group whose parents need domiciliary care would be disadvantaged, and the groups whose parents need residential care would benefit.
I thought the way this issue was reduced to the level of a misleading caricature was one of the most depressing things about the election campaign.
Now both residential and personal care inheriters are likely to benefit as the £100k limit only after which you have to pay for care costs will likely stay but your home will be excluded from personal care costs and a cap imposed as to the maximum payable
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Almost everyone with dementia will end up.in residential care before the end. All that Cornyn gas achieved is ensuring the inheritance is only £23K instead of £100K.
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Almost everyone with dementia will end up.in residential care before the end. All that Cornyn gas achieved is ensuring the inheritance is only £23K instead of £100K.
whether any cap arrives or the means test value goes up now depends on what the govt is prepared to invest in social care - in full Dilnot the means test was supposed to go up to £100k I think, and the cap was supposed to be £35k - the latter figure got bumped up and then parked.
The cap is pretty regressive, if you are wealthier you still stop contributing when you reach it although you have retained more of your estate.
Its all daft, there are increasingly less people paying tax v people needing health or social care, thats an unstoppable demographic trend and the tax take is going to have to go up somehow. Social care suffers v health care because everyone is scared they might wake up ill but no one except the nearly old are scared they will wake up old.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
In large areas of the country it is perfectly possible for young people with reasonable jobs to buy a decent house. The problems arise in London, Oxford, Cambridge etc where supply problems coincide with strong job opportunities and an enticing potential lifestyle (housing excluded). I think there are realistic practical things the government need to start implementing to improve matters the hot spot areas.
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
Uni fees are the Osborne Poll Tax
Gordon Brown introduced Uni fees in 1998
Osborne tripled them
But made the repayments more progressive...
And then undid that by freezing the realyment threshold
I am reluctant to pay of his uni debt (and not in a position to do so for a couple of years), but if I did, then there was either a graduate tax for him to pay anyway, or a forgiving of the debt by a Corbyn government, then it would be money down the drain. It is also possible that he may emigrate.
Probably better to give him the money to spend as he sees fit, and keep paying the 9% extra for his graduate debt.
The paradox of it is that the system is rigged against early repayment, though the steep rise in interest rate to Inflation plus 3% does mean that it is a life weighed down with the chains of debt slavery.
I have put away £100 a month for each of my two kids since they were born. Even with it invested very conservatively that is enough to cover fees for them. If they choose not to go the University route then it is a deposit on a house. We have had to forego expensive foreign holidays for cheaper but just as enjoyable British or near European holidays but that really is no sacrifice.
It has other benefits beyond simply giving them money. It shows them what cab be achieved by just some very basic saving. It also teaches them the benefit of not relying on the State for hangouts or loans. Most importantly it means they will not come out of university thinking debt is something normal or acceptable which is surely the terrible lesson student loans are teaching whole generations now.
It's simplistic to say that all debt is terrible - a mortgage, student loan for a good degree and (maybe) a car loan are examples where the benefit exceeds the cost of the interest
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
In large areas of the country it is perfectly possible for young people with reasonable jobs to buy a decent house. The problems arise in London, Oxford, Cambridge etc where supply problems coincide with strong job opportunities and an enticing potential lifestyle (housing excluded). I think there are realistic practical things the government need to start implementing to improve matters the hot spot areas.
This is the problem - the reasonably paid jobs are not located near the reasonably priced housing.
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
I am reluctant to pay of his uni debt (and not in a position to do so for a couple of years), but if I did, then there was either a graduate tax for him to pay anyway, or a forgiving of the debt by a Corbyn government, then it would be money down the drain. It is also possible that he may emigrate.
Probably better to give him the money to spend as he sees fit, and keep paying the 9% extra for his graduate debt.
The paradox of it is that the system is rigged against early repayment, though the steep rise in interest rate to Inflation plus 3% does mean that it is a life weighed down with the chains of debt slavery.
I have put away £100 a month for each of my two kids since they were born. Even with it invested very conservatively that is enough to cover fees for them. If they choose not to go the University route then it is a deposit on a house. We have had to forego expensive foreign holidays for cheaper but just as enjoyable British or near European holidays but that really is no sacrifice.
It has other benefits beyond simply giving them money. It shows them what cab be achieved by just some very basic saving. It also teaches them the benefit of not relying on the State for hangouts or loans. Most importantly it means they will not come out of university thinking debt is something normal or acceptable which is surely the terrible lesson student loans are teaching whole generations now.
It's simplistic to say that all debt is terrible - a mortgage, student loan for a good degree and (maybe) a car loan are examples where the benefit exceeds the cost of the interest
Some debt might be necessary but as a rule accepting debt as a way of life is not good. One day those chickens come home to roost. We are one of the most indebted countries in the first world as far as personal debt goes and we have lost the ability to save. As Robert Smithson likes to point out the most successful countries economically are those with the highest levels of personal savings. It is a habit we need to relearn.
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Almost everyone with dementia will end up.in residential care before the end. All that Cornyn gas achieved is ensuring the inheritance is only £23K instead of £100K.
No. The general election result was win win for the upper middle class. May had to dump the dementia tax and Corbyn did not get enough seats to reverse Osborne's inheritance tax cut. It is likely the social care report will still ensure the level of assets you keep before being liable for care costs will still rise to £100k anyway
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
In large areas of the country it is perfectly possible for young people with reasonable jobs to buy a decent house. The problems arise in London, Oxford, Cambridge etc where supply problems coincide with strong job opportunities and an enticing potential lifestyle (housing excluded). I think there are realistic practical things the government need to start implementing to improve matters the hot spot areas.
This is the problem - the reasonably paid jobs are not located near the reasonably priced housing.
It is the problem but it is also important to realise that it is not universal. There are plenty of well paid jobs in the North West for instance and plenty of reasonably priced houses.
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Almost everyone with dementia will end up.in residential care before the end. All that Cornyn gas achieved is ensuring the inheritance is only £23K instead of £100K.
No. The general election result was win win for the upper middle class. May had to dump the dementia tax and Corbyn did not get enough seats to reverse Osborne's inheritance tax cut. It is likely the social care report will still ensure the level of assets you keep before being liable for care costs will still rise to £100k anyway
As it stands at the.moment if you get dementia and have to end up in care - as almost all dementia sufferers eventually do - then all that unprotected is £23K. How is that better than what was proposed (from a middle class point of view).
Of course personally I don't think the State should be protecting inheritance at all in this way but I am arguing the issue on your terms not mine.
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
The cap was always intended as 'politics' to protect those with assets from the fear of them being eaten in old age - but it did have another more forward looking function - scoping the right means test and the right cap was supposed to kick start a private insurance market on the basis that the insurance companies would have a measurable risk to cover after which the state would pick up the bill and since only a relatively small number of people would actually end up spending up to the cap they could create policies that many would pay into but only a few would call off on, as per accident insurance
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
The cap was always intended as 'politics' to protect those with assets from the fear of them being eaten in old age - but it did have another more forward looking function - scoping the right means test and the right cap was supposed to kick start a private insurance market on the basis that the insurance companies would have a measurable risk to cover after which the state would pick up the bill and since only a relatively small number of people would actually end up spending up to the cap they could create policies that many would pay into but only a few would call off on, as per accident insurance
Well not actually eaten, although that might become an option (soylent green is people)
Could you highlight the bits of that which are evidence of political nous?
If you can't figure it out, I'm not going to help you.
If you believe Theresa May's authority and credibility have been enhanced by the election please enlighten the rest of us.
Political nous is surely to figure out how to fill the huge void at centre of politics. This is a vacuum which surely will not last. If the solution to a diminished Theresa May is for the country to turn to a Bennite Marxist fossil who has not had an original thought in over 40 years then there really is no hope.
Could you highlight the bits of that which are evidence of political nous?
If you can't figure it out, I'm not going to help you.
If you believe Theresa May's authority and credibility have been enhanced by the election please enlighten the rest of us.
My point was that it is so obvious that Theresa May's authority and credibility have not been enhanced by the election, that saying so can scarcely be regarded as evidence of "political nous."
The idea that because you have a professional job in London (along with New York one of the 2 greatest global cities now) should guarantee you a penthouse in Kensington with a view of the Thames is not realistic I am afraid unless you are a corporate lawyer or investment banker. Most rent and share in their 20s and early 30s (as I did) then if they want to buy move out to the suburbs or home counties
We could go round and round in circles on this one, but my point is that unless you have parents who are both able and willing to hand over 50k, your 'AB' job isn't going to buy you jack, you're going to rent and houseshare for all eternity - that's the difference and it could well explain why Labour is winning over more and more AB types.
It is the vanishing middle that fascinates me, the neoliberal consensus of the Thatcher years and later was very much predicated on 'work hard and you can get rich / move up / get on in life', as social mobility dwindles it all becomes about what you inherit, which strikes most people as unfair. Inheritance has always been there, dividing people, but increasinlgy it is the only way to get on in life. My theory is that without social mobility, you get socialism.
I think people vote rationally, and we are reaching a tipping point where more people see it as rational to vote for radical redistribution as wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite. Democratic capitalism needs a socially mobile middle class to function, without it you just have a lot of poor people hungrily eyeing the assets of the rich and realising they can vote to take it off them.
We are in for scary times if and when that happens. But the Corbyn surge shows we may well be heading down that path.
In large areas of the country it is perfectly possible for young people with reasonable jobs to buy a decent house. The problems arise in London, Oxford, Cambridge etc where supply problems coincide with strong job opportunities and an enticing potential lifestyle (housing excluded). I think there are realistic practical things the government need to start implementing to improve matters the hot spot areas.
This is the problem - the reasonably paid jobs are not located near the reasonably priced housing.
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
I agree with that. To me the most disappointing aspect of the election was the failure to send every Cabinet member out to defend the manifesto, and in doing so allow the care proposals to be defined and caracatured by their opponents, leading to a bodged U-turn.
The second most disappointing aspect was the failure to challenge Labour's economics, by both the Conservatives and the media.
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
Almost everyone with dementia will end up.in residential care before the end. All that Cornyn gas achieved is ensuring the inheritance is only £23K instead of £100K.
No. The general election result was win win for the upper middle class. May had to dump the dementia tax and Corbyn did not get enough seats to reverse Osborne's inheritance tax cut. It is likely the social care report will still ensure the level of assets you keep before being liable for care costs will still rise to £100k anyway
As it stands at the.moment if you get dementia and have to end up in care - as almost all dementia sufferers eventually do - then all that unprotected is £23K. How is that better than what was proposed (from a middle class point of view).
Of course personally I don't think the State should be protecting inheritance at all in this way but I am arguing the issue on your terms not mine.
75% of care is personal care and so the reversal of the dementia tax and the guarantee that the family home will not be included in liability for it is a big benefit to your estate. Even if you do need residential care as I said it is almost certain that the amount protected before liability will still rise from £23k to £100k once the social care consultation reports. Coupled with Osborne's raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million the 2015 and 2017 general elections have produced the biggest redistribution of wealth to the upper middle class in a generation
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
I agree with that. To me the most disappointing aspect of the election was the failure to send every Cabinet member out to defend the manifesto, and in doing so allow the care proposals to be defined and caracatured by their opponents, leading to a bodged U-turn.
The second most disappointing aspect was the failure to challenge Labour's economics, by both the Conservatives and the media.
The care proposals should never have been introduced as a surprise item in a GE. They were part and parcel of an indescribably crap campaign which was just unforgivable.
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
I agree with that. To me the most disappointing aspect of the election was the failure to send every Cabinet member out to defend the manifesto, and in doing so allow the care proposals to be defined and caracatured by their opponents, leading to a bodged U-turn.
The second most disappointing aspect was the failure to challenge Labour's economics, by both the Conservatives and the media.
The care proposals should never have been introduced as a surprise item in a GE. They were part and parcel of an indescribably crap campaign which was just unforgivable.
I think the intention was to avoid too many commitments such as the NI proposal that came undone in the budget, and also to take a look at one of the areas which has been in the "too difficult but desperately needs doing" pile for a long time - in the early part of the year there were numerous stories about care provision, especially in relation to bed blocking from hospital inpatients and local authorities trying to raise extra council tax to cover social care. The policy being in the manifesto would have given cover for it in the Lords and would have been beneficial to most people as well as the public finances. The "losers" would have been the children of the already wealthy whose parents needed care in old age.
In fairness we raised the vote percentage over the 2015 result, but as this thread header shows we didn't bet on Corbyn and Labour's popularity increasing so much. The campaign itself, in terms of numerous ministers out every day over all the media, just didn't happen though. Sadly.
The dementia tax debate here has a corollary. If the Conservative proposal was as good and progressive as claimed, then surely I am right and the election was not (almost) lost by the manifesto or the SpAds but by Lynton Crosby's lousy, negative campaign. Theresa May should have defended the proposal instead of U-turning and in the process undermining "strong and stable".
Good point. In fact, the cap effectively shielded the very rich. The whole presentation and the U-turn was cack-handed.
I agree with that. To me the most disappointing aspect of the election was the failure to send every Cabinet member out to defend the manifesto, and in doing so allow the care proposals to be defined and caracatured by their opponents, leading to a bodged U-turn.
The second most disappointing aspect was the failure to challenge Labour's economics, by both the Conservatives and the media.
The care proposals should never have been introduced as a surprise item in a GE. They were part and parcel of an indescribably crap campaign which was just unforgivable.
I think the intention was to avoid too many commitments such as the NI proposal that came undone in the budget, and also to take a look at one of the areas which has been in the "too difficult but desperately needs doing" pile for a long time - in the early part of the year there were numerous stories about care provision, especially in relation to bed blocking from hospital inpatients and local authorities trying to raise extra council tax to cover social care. The policy being in the manifesto would have given cover for it in the Lords and would have been beneficial to most people as well as the public finances. The "losers" would have been the children of the already wealthy whose parents needed care in old age.
In fairness we raised the vote percentage over the 2015 result, but as this thread header shows we didn't bet on Corbyn and Labour's popularity increasing so much. The campaign itself, in terms of numerous ministers out every day over all the media, just didn't happen though. Sadly.
For reasons that are not altogether plain the centre has all but collapsed and that and that explains the apparantly impressive vote share. A decent Tory politician, of the kind that were commonplace from the 1950s to the 1990s, would sieze this opportuity and put paid to the risible notion that the country is drifting towards the 'inevitability' of Corbynism.
Comments
What those of us with a scintilla of political nous recognise is the huge open gaping self-inflicted wound. A hubristic election called for no other reason than to get a big majority and crush Labour (how we laughed at the thought of Ed Miliband losing his seat !) backfired disastrously.
Like a wounded animal, the Conservative Government staggers on, limping from crisis to crisis, weakening by the day and by the month. May's authority has gone, she is diminished and even the Cabinet hover around like jackals picking lumps out of what's left of her authority and credibility.
Eventually, the voters will be given the opportunity to deliver the coup de grace and everyone will be glad to put the Conservatives out of our misery.
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Raising the assets you could keep if your parents needed residential care to £100k was not the contentious part, including the value of your house in liability for personal social care was
Along with the implied dropping of the idea of a cap in either case
I am reluctant to pay of his uni debt (and not in a position to do so for a couple of years), but if I did, then there was either a graduate tax for him to pay anyway, or a forgiving of the debt by a Corbyn government, then it would be money down the drain. It is also possible that he may emigrate.
Probably better to give him the money to spend as he sees fit, and keep paying the 9% extra for his graduate debt.
The paradox of it is that the system is rigged against early repayment, though the steep rise in interest rate to Inflation plus 3% does mean that it is a life weighed down with the chains of debt slavery.
taxing young people for learning is a fking stupid idea
so much for the high skill high wage economy
Demographically these work out as about a quarter of the population each.
Nevertheless, in effect it would be a redistribution from one group of potential inheritors to another. The group whose parents need domiciliary care would be disadvantaged, and the groups whose parents need residential care would benefit.
I thought the way this issue was reduced to the level of a misleading caricature was one of the most depressing things about the election campaign.
It has other benefits beyond simply giving them money. It shows them what cab be achieved by just some very basic saving. It also teaches them the benefit of not relying on the State for hangouts or loans. Most importantly it means they will not come out of university thinking debt is something normal or acceptable which is surely the terrible lesson student loans are teaching whole generations now.
Along with the implied dropping of the idea of a cap in either case'
Yes so thanks Jeremy for ensuring a cap will be in place, the family home excluded from personal care cost calculations and the inheritance of the middle classes protected
The cap is pretty regressive, if you are wealthier you still stop contributing when you reach it although you have retained more of your estate.
Its all daft, there are increasingly less people paying tax v people needing health or social care, thats an unstoppable demographic trend and the tax take is going to have to go up somehow. Social care suffers v health care because everyone is scared they might wake up ill but no one except the nearly old are scared they will wake up old.
If you believe Theresa May's authority and credibility have been enhanced by the election please enlighten the rest of us.
Of course personally I don't think the State should be protecting inheritance at all in this way but I am arguing the issue on your terms not mine.
The second most disappointing aspect was the failure to challenge Labour's economics, by both the Conservatives and the media.
In fairness we raised the vote percentage over the 2015 result, but as this thread header shows we didn't bet on Corbyn and Labour's popularity increasing so much. The campaign itself, in terms of numerous ministers out every day over all the media, just didn't happen though. Sadly.
NEW THREAD