The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
I do not know precisely what it means, but I can see it is costed. You will see from the paragraph you quote that the £3 billion is to: place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care.
So it is clear from that paragraph that individuals will still pay, subject to more generous caps and limits, and it then goes on to talk about raising additional funds.
The manifesto is costed. You disagree with the costings, but can only do so because the costings are there. You also seem to have gold-plated the proposal.
Now, turn to pages 64 to 66 of the Conservative manifesto and its proposals to limit social care charges. How much will it cost?
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
I do not know precisely what it means, but I can see it is costed. You will see from the paragraph you quote that the £3 billion is to: place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care.
So it is clear from that paragraph that individuals will still pay, subject to more generous caps and limits, and it then goes on to talk about raising additional funds.
The manifesto is costed. You disagree with the costings, but can only do so because the costings are there. You also seem to have gold-plated the proposal.
Now, turn to pages 64 to 66 of the Conservative manifesto and its proposals to limit social care charges. How much will it cost?
That's the difference.
Your position is absurd
If you can't tell me what 'free end of life care' means, then arguments about its cost are meaningless.
You can make the cost any number you please, because you can say the free care is just the last 5 minutes or the last 5 weeks.
Please note, "free end of life care" is a direct quote form the Labour manifesto.
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problems
Actually, Katie is smart. This is a classic case of the Prisoner's Dilemma.
It is in your interests for you not to vaccinate your child, but for everyone else to vaccinate theirs.
Katie Hopkins also seems to have been confused by the common idiom of using the word flu as a synonym for a bad cold. From her Mail article: my strongest argument of all is that I don’t mind if Max gets the flu this winter. He’ll probably be off school for a day and then crack on as normal.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Jesus Christ, Young Labour have a worse grasp of history than Morris Dancer.
twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919655495505530881
twitter.com/wallaceme/status/919656961628688386
What do you expect with Michael Gove rewriting the history syllabus? Aside from anything else, you'd think they'd know about Labour's role in keeping Britain out of Vietnam.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
This is one of those quotes to record for posterity. Even the biggest calculations of costs to the City are a tiny fraction of the gap between London and Frankfurt. Most financial exports aren't even into the EU, so why would it matter? The hit is likely to be some small operations to sell into the EU will be distributed between Frankfurt, Dublin and Luxembourg so there won't even be an agglomeration elsewhere.
My guess is that the bulk of London's transactional business will move to the EU for compliance reasons. Customers issue a competency questionnaire which asks, Are you compliant with EU XYZ? You always want to answer Yes to those questions rather than explain you have an equivalent arrangement you think is just as good. Suppliers will be required to be compliant to frontline organisations. Over time it's easier to make everything fully compliant. London should be able to hang onto its multidisciplinary project specialism for the time being.
Paris claims to employ almost as many in financial services as London. It is the base for several of Europe's top ten banks. London business won't all go to Frankfurt.
Poor Max. But with Katie as his mother I guess flu is the least of his problems
I suspect what she says in public, and what she does in private, are two rather different things.
She's a professional controversialist and feeds off notoriety, so, as far as her career is concerned, the more outraged the reaction to what she says the better.
That said, from a free-speech point-of-view, I do think there's a role in public discourse for someone like her, because it forces others to engage and sharpen their arguments.
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more stupid and less experienced.
On Corbyn Dishonesty, stupidity and lack of experience, for sure. But who would I rather have doing the Brexit negotiations - Davis or Starmer? Well, there's no contest there. Sir Keir puts the work in, as opposed to the Minister for Winging It. Thornberry or Johnson, the former, just. Hammond beats McDonnell, but it's getting close; and Rudd is obviously ahead of Abbott. As for the rest, it's pretty much nip and tuck. The one difference is that May is picking from a full team; Corbyn has decided he doesn't want to.
I know we disagree on these things, but I'm surprised that you think Thornberry only just better than Johnson. She's witty within reasonable limits and coherent, and doesn't seem to have any shocking policies: the worst the Tories have to say about her is that she once posted a (by implication) snooty text. Johnson would be an amusing party chair, but as Foreign Secretary, he actively embarasses Britain.
By way of balance, I don't think Davis is that bad. I don't know his work ethic, but he's reasonably coherent on TV and despite the tricky situation has avoided the obvious mantraps (such as describing the other negotiators as enemies).
I don't believe Thornberry believes half the things she says - that's my problem with her. I guess she's like Johnson in that respect. In terms of competence, I agree she is well ahead of him. A year ago Davis was promising that the UK would be part of a free trade area with a GDP 10 times greater than the EU's the day after Brexit and that German car manufacturers would ensure a quick and easy deal with the EU. Earlier this year he was promising a deal with the EU that would retain all the benefits of membership. He is going through a proteacted learning experience because he never bothered to do his homework.
What dropped off my original post is that I wrote I saw no indication that Corbyn is corrupt. I really don't think he is.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Official Labour policies are Social Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
My concerns about McDonnell are not related to what he says while in opposition. As you have noted many times before, he is a much more results-focused politician than Corbyn and he understands the importance of electability. I thought he was very good on Marr yesterday, batting away questions that Corbyn would have struggled with. No, my concern with McDonnell is what he might do should he get power. He has made his views very clear over a number of years, as have all of those who surround the Labour leadership. They are unapologetic Marxists. That's just a simple fact. And unapologetic Marxists given the levers of power will have the ability to inflict substantial harm.
Pong - "Ministers lose fight to stop payouts over swine flu jab narcolepsy cases" - looks as though the vaccination was more dangerous than than the flu.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
I do not know precisely what it means, but I can see it is costed. You will see from the paragraph you quote that the £3 billion is to: place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care.
So it is clear from that paragraph that individuals will still pay, subject to more generous caps and limits, and it then goes on to talk about raising additional funds.
The manifesto is costed. You disagree with the costings, but can only do so because the costings are there. You also seem to have gold-plated the proposal.
Now, turn to pages 64 to 66 of the Conservative manifesto and its proposals to limit social care charges. How much will it cost?
That's the difference.
Your position is absurd
If you can't tell me what 'free end of life care' means, then arguments about its cost are meaningless.
You can make the cost any number you please, because you can say the free care is just the last 5 minutes or the last 5 weeks.
Please note, "free end of life care" is a direct quote form the Labour manifesto.
I am just asking : what does it mean?
I assume end of life care has some technical meaning, perhaps akin to palliative care. Whatever it is, it clearly is costed. Your claim that it is not costed is clearly false.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Labour's not close to being ready to take over running the government, which is no guarantee that they won't be given the chance but it'll become pretty apparent pretty quickly that it's so if they do.
Nick's over-egging it to say that they're no less prepared than normal but he has something of a point: there've only been two oppositions in the last third of a century that became governments. Both were ready but they were the exceptions. Most of the rest of the time, the opposition wasn't and the public saw that.
If the government can not get Universal Credit payments to claimants within six weeks , after numerous pilots and limited rollouts, and a 10 year implementation stage .It hardly fills you with confidence that they can cope in a no deal situation with the EU over trading arrangements.
I think the main one is one where the ECJ maintain any control over domestic law, especially n the Financial sector. They will seek to use it to undermine London as a financial centre.
Instead, we are using Brexit to undermine London as a financial centre.
London is gone as THE predominant financial centre in Europe under any Brexit scenario. London can still be AN important financial centre, but business goes where the market is. We chose not to be fully part of the European market.
We chose that route ages ago
We were riding two horses, I think [whether the UK was fully part of the European financial market]. I can't see any Brexit scenario where the horses don't separate sufficiently for us to fall through the gap.
that choice was always going to be forced on us you cant ride 2 horses for ever
I think you are right. The kind of Brexit makes a big difference in other respects. Brexit in any form just accelerates the CIty of London's inevitable loss of dominance.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
If Project Fear becomes Project Reality, then the Tory Leavers in government are going to be in a very awkward place.
If???
How many weeks does it take for £350m to equal £490bn? About 26 years or so....
Hard to miss it if we never had it in the first place.
Ha , was not long ago the nutters on here were telling us how poor Scotland was based on these turkeys garbage numbers, good to see them enjoying the fact that these halfwits would have trouble doing up their laces never mind counting. Fake lapdogs turning on their masters, just brilliant.
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
Can you provide me with your medical credentials?
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.
To be fair, flu vaccines are pretty useless - they basically make a guess each year about which of 4-5 strains circulating in Australia will become the dominant strain the following winter.
Unless you are particularly vulnerable (elderly, sick or young) there isn't much point. Eight sounds older than I remember (I thought it used to be under 5s) but haven't looked at the mortality stats in a while
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
There is already “free end of life care” on the NHS under some circumstances; my late father had it. He was admitted to hospital in late 2015 and found to have terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months. He was released to a nursing home which the NHS paid for as “continuing medical care”. All we as the family had to do was choose the nursing home.
One issue with some vaccinations - and I don't know if the flu jab is one of these - is that they are only effective at controlling epidemics if a minimum proportion of the population is inoculated. While people have the absolute right to control what goes into their body, refusing to be vaccinated not only puts your life at risk, it increases the chance of other people being infected. Public figures who come out against vaccination on a dodgy balance of risks should be careful.
You're talking about herd immunity - it applies to all infectious diseases but only really matters for eradication purposes.
The manifesto said the £3 billion would allow a cap to be placed on individual payments. I suspect this is the point you have both missed, and your numbers are higher because you are costing a more generous service than the one in the manifesto. To stretch your analogy, you have dreamt that Labour promised a Ferrari and are now complaining they've only budgeted for a Ford Focus RS.
None of which changes the basic point which is that Labour's manifesto was costed; the Conservative one was not.
I have just checked the manifesto, and the 3 billion pound figure includes " free end of life care." See page 72 of the Manifesto, where it is clear that the 3 billion also covers a bunch of other things as well.
Now of course, "free end of life care" might just be the last 5 minutes of your life. Or the last minute.
It is not unreasonable to think it means that those ending their life in care homes would have their care home bills covered.
If it doesn't mean this, please do tell us what "free end of life care" actually means.
There is already “free end of life care” on the NHS under some circumstances; my late father had it. He was admitted to hospital in late 2015 and found to have terminal cancer with a prognosis of less than six months. He was released to a nursing home which the NHS paid for as “continuing medical care”. All we as the family had to do was choose the nursing home.
Another example of the chaos and lottery of existing system. If the patient has dementia rather than cancer, then almost certainly no funding from NHS.
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.
If you don't mind me asking, how are you in a position to take such decisions?
Do you have a residency permit or Canadian passport?
A rather sad political situation we have. And the alternative is worse.
+1 (almost!!!) Not sure the alternative is worse, just not a lot better. Another bit of Cameron’s dreadful legacy; smashing the third party alternative.
No, Corbyn is definitely worse. He's more dishonest, more corrupt, more stupid and less experienced.
More dishonest than Johnson? I grant you that May doesn’t seem corrupt, just out of her depth.
Yes, imposing achievement though that is. His campaign was almost identical in terms of uncosted promises (that he falsely claimed were costed) and had almost the same disastrous result.
And intellectually he is more out of his depth than an ant in the Mindanao Deep.
Labour's manifesto was costed. The Conservative one was not. It is because Labour's manifesto was costed that people and organisations like the IFS could question and argue with its costings.
I am looking forward to your explanation of the cost of a National Care Service at 3 billion pounds.
Let’s just take one aspect of this. There are 300,000 people in residential care. The typical cost of care home fees is 30,000 pa, though cost of dementia treatment is substantially more. Unless you have assets more than 23,200, you will pay the fees yourself. Most people pay the fees.
Multiply the two numbers together, and see if you can get an answer less than 3 billion.
This is just one small part of the care budget, yet it already exceeds by a huge margin the cost assigned to the creation of an entire National Care Service in the Labour Manifesto.
I did work out the figures at the time, but I reckoned the actual cost of creating a National Care Service providing what Labour said it would was about 18 billion pounds a year.
Take a step back. You disagree with Labour's costings; you think they are unrealistically low; alternatively, your programme is more generous than Labour's.
But that's the point. You can argue against Labour's numbers because Labour has numbers to argue with. Labour's manifesto was costed, QED.
No: Labour's manifesto had some made-up numbers attached. That's not the same as "costed" which implies a degree of precision (even if you disagree with some of the assumptions)
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
snip
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I note that Labour wont reverse benefit cuts, but will splash billions and billions on renationalising utilities and wiping out middle class student debts.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
Poor fella, there's such an inaccurate myth about him.
I remember a radio documentary about it which described him using the tunnel to tend his flock and how he didn't want to give it up but not sure about the details of the myth otherwise?
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
It was Tony Benn who invented the argument about German cars and Italian wine. Amazingly his agenda is now being pursued by a Conservative government.
< What scenarios that could realistically transpire - and realistically is the key word here - would be worse than a No Deal? I'm not seeking to be confrontational here, I am genuinely puzzled. I cannot think of any and it could well be that I am missing something. Maybe we differ on what No Deal actually means?
I think that this has been answered elsewhere, but one point that needs to be made is that the way you talk no country has ever dared trying to do what the UK will need to do - eg manage its own borders and customs. Sorry, almost every non-EU country in the World does this for pretty much 100% of its trade and they all seem to manage without turning half of their nations into lorry parks. In fact, in many places (eg Australia) they also add very strict quarantine arrangements on top of this, yet there is food on the shelves and goods in the stores. Everyone else does it, why can't we?
We have an economy predicated on being part of a single market and we are now seeking to leave that single market, as well as the customs union that runs alongside it. No country on earth has done that before. I agree, businesses will adapt if we declare we are moving to WTO. They will leave - in part or in whole - and they will reduce their investments in the UK, which will become a market of 65 million people instead of being a seamless part of one that comprises 450 million.
This is a little too black and white.
Firstly, the EU market was very far from seamless in services anyway (although pretty much there in goods) and the EU marketplace isn't eliminated to us as a consequence of us not being full members of the single market.
It's just that the (broader) European market will constitute both the UK (65m) + EU (385m) + EFTA with a few extra non-tariff, and possibly in the short-term tariff, barriers in trading across it, rather than one rather incomplete regulatory regime, and a single customs union.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
snip
My concerns about McDonnell are not related to what he says while in opposition. As you have noted many times before, he is a much more results-focused politician than Corbyn and he understands the importance of electability. I thought he was very good on Marr yesterday, batting away questions that Corbyn would have struggled with. No, my concern with McDonnell is what he might do should he get power. He has made his views very clear over a number of years, as have all of those who surround the Labour leadership. They are unapologetic Marxists. That's just a simple fact. And unapologetic Marxists given the levers of power will have the ability to inflict substantial harm.
That is my basic problem with these guys, and, especially, their aides and staff. Some of them have spent decades outside the Labour party trying to defeat it because it wasn't marxist enough.
I remain to be convinced as to their true commitment to Parliamentary democracy, if they find they can't get what they want.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
snip
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You wouldn't expect me to agree, but I genuinely think that the Opposition is no less prepared for office than any Opposition I can remember. Which isn't actually saying all that much: oppositions generally make statements of direction without much detail.
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I note that Labour wont reverse benefit cuts, but will splash billions and billions on renationalising utilities and wiping out middle class student debts.
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I am not sure Labour's current polices are that socialist. I am almost certain that should the party as currently constituted get into power, the policies will be a lot more to the left than anything set out in the 2017 manifesto. Above all else, though, it is foreign policy that concerns me. There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the current Labour leadership would seek to take the UK out of NATO; while under Corbyn we would give unequivocal backing to any anti-US government going, however unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.
If you don't mind me asking, how are you in a position to take such decisions?
Do you have a residency permit or Canadian passport?
Not yet, I have some business investments and links out in Canada, plus the firm I work for has an office in Toronto, and I should have the option to move out, so I have a few options if the need arises.
I have an effectively unoccupied in property in Manchester, and I know the Corbynistas have their eyes on stuff like that.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
I'm not sure how that works - even if the exit agreement (or lack thereof) is "sorted" by the next GE, there will be nothing stopping politicians proposing that we re-enter the Single Market even if we are outside of it for a period of time. A "No Deal" scenario by the government will almost inevitably lead to atleast one party at the next election to propose undoing the "No Deal", so it's not going to be permanently "sorted" at all.
(Whether the public would vote for that is another matter.)
I remember a radio documentary about it which described him using the tunnel to tend his flock and how he didn't want to give it up but not sure about the details of the myth otherwise?
The myth is that he refused to sell up, so they built around him.
Turns out there was a deep geological fault underneath the property, so it was easier for the contractors to build around him, so that's why they didn't buy him out.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
just to clarify: a friend, not my family - we can only trace back the main line to the 16C and through the female line to Muhammed
Mr. Observer, indeed, and he'll scrap Trident as soon as possible too.
*sighs*
He might not get the chance, Hard Brexit with a £60 billion drop in tax revenues might see the Tories scrap the replacement for Trident.
Though they would still likely keep a nuclear deterrent, just a cheaper one than Trident (as long as it is not sharing our nuclear submarines with France!)
Apparently it's due to atmospheric conditions caused by sand from the Sahara and the smoke from the wildfires in Portugal and NW Spain, brought to us by the winds associated with Hurricane Ophelia. It is a small world sometimes.
Mr. Observer, as I've said before, most people like the economics of the EU but not the politics. We were never asked about either. The madness of being in a position whereby leaving apparently risks planes not flying is not one of the electorate's making. Not unlike foreign aid, when the political class has a consensus, the electorate has no effective power to make a change.
Ironically, had we actually had a vote on Lisbon that would've acted as a pressure valve.
The apparent huge political polarisation that's sprung up suddenly is in fact just the natural end result of an ever-increasing gulf between the political class and about half the electorate. It's a quite concerning state of affairs, and whilst the EU and our relationship with it is a significant aspect, it's not the only part of the puzzle.
Mr. Eagles, isn't the UK your country?
The UK is my country, and always will be, but it is clear Brexit and Corbyn are going to be very damaging to my finances and that of my family, both Brexit and Corbyn are effectively targeting people like me, so I'm taking preventive measures.
If you don't mind me asking, how are you in a position to take such decisions?
Do you have a residency permit or Canadian passport?
Not yet, I have some business investments and links out in Canada, plus the firm I work for has an office in Toronto, and I should have the option to move out, so I have a few options if the need arises.
I have an effectively unoccupied in property in Manchester, and I know the Corbynistas have their eyes on stuff like that.
Apparently it's due to atmospheric conditions caused by sand from the Sahara and the smoke from the wildfires in Portugal and NW Spain, brought to us by the winds associated with Hurricane Ophelia. It is a small world sometimes.
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Indeed they do, but the base of support for both main parties is becoming much more socially mixed.
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Indeed they do, but the base of support for both main parties is becoming much more socially mixed.
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
Varied depending on place I think - I reckon East Mids/South Yorkshire was the highest swing, West Mids, North East and Northwest were more Labour.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I am not sure Labour's current polices are that socialist. I am almost certain that should the party as currently constituted get into power, the policies will be a lot more to the left than anything set out in the 2017 manifesto. Above all else, though, it is foreign policy that concerns me. There is absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the current Labour leadership would seek to take the UK out of NATO; while under Corbyn we would give unequivocal backing to any anti-US government going, however unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Mr. Observer, indeed, and he'll scrap Trident as soon as possible too.
*sighs*
He might not get the chance, Hard Brexit with a £60 billion drop in tax revenues might see the Tories scrap the replacement for Trident.
Good.
Whilst I would like to see money spent on our conventional forces, I can't help but think whilst France has the nuclear deterrent, so should we.
The US/Russia keep an effective MAD on the world to be perfectly honest, and we aren't part of the Russian hinterland - so will never be invaded in a thousand years by them. The only reason to keep it is for soft diplomatic reasons not actual defence.
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
Can you provide me with your medical credentials?
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.
To be fair, flu vaccines are pretty useless - they basically make a guess each year about which of 4-5 strains circulating in Australia will become the dominant strain the following winter.
Unless you are particularly vulnerable (elderly, sick or young) there isn't much point. Eight sounds older than I remember (I thought it used to be under 5s) but haven't looked at the mortality stats in a while
I think 'pretty useless' is quite an exaggeration. Clearly the effectiveness varies considerably from season to season (for much the reasons you give), but if you have the time to wade through the stats, you'll see they appear significantly to reduce mortality.
The rate of SAEs for the GSK vaccine did appear to be quite a bit higher than others (something like 75 per million compared to 7.5 per million from memory).
Most years the mortality rate for healthy individuals from flu is pretty small - but the rate of serious adverse events from the vaccine is also very small. On balance, you're taking a significantly bigger risk not getting vaccinated than getting vaccinated - but in most years the absolute risk is quite small. If you're in a vulnerable group, then you should certainly get the vaccination.
Mr. Observer, indeed, and he'll scrap Trident as soon as possible too.
*sighs*
He might not get the chance, Hard Brexit with a £60 billion drop in tax revenues might see the Tories scrap the replacement for Trident.
Good.
Whilst I would like to see money spent on our conventional forces, I can't help but think whilst France has the nuclear deterrent, so should we.
The US/Russia keep an effective MAD on the world to be perfectly honest, and we aren't part of the Russian hinterland - so will never be invaded in a thousand years by them. The only reason to keep it is for soft diplomatic reasons not actual defence.
Plus to keep non nuclear Spain and Argentina a little on edge over Gibraltar and the Falklands
I don’t see any problems with that article. It’s far better than the usual garbage Katie Hopkins churns out.
Well presented by the DM, too, offering a strong professional counter-opinion.
So you're anti-vaccine as well. Noted.
Nope. I’m anti-Katie Hopkins and clicked that link expecting a ridiculous sensationalist rant.
Her points were perfectly reasonable and the editing & presentation of the counter case was good.
Credit where credit is due.
I’m generally pro vaccine - but aiui, the case for flu vaccines for 8yo kids is pretty marginal. Meningitis, mmr etc is a different calculation and imo they should basically be compulsory. I’m strongly pro-hpv for boys, too.
Can you provide me with your medical credentials?
I know it is an unfashionable view these days, but I trust the experts.
To be fair, flu vaccines are pretty useless - they basically make a guess each year about which of 4-5 strains circulating in Australia will become the dominant strain the following winter.
Unless you are particularly vulnerable (elderly, sick or young) there isn't much point. Eight sounds older than I remember (I thought it used to be under 5s) but haven't looked at the mortality stats in a while
I think 'pretty useless' is quite an exaggeration. Clearly the effectiveness varies considerably from season to season (for much the reasons you give), but if you have the time to wade through the stats, you'll see they appear significantly to reduce mortality.
The rate of SAEs for the GSK vaccine did appear to be quite a bit higher than others (something like 75 per million compared to 7.5 per million from memory).
Most years the mortality rate for healthy individuals from flu is pretty small - but the rate of serious adverse events from the vaccine is also very small. On balance, you're taking a significantly bigger risk not getting vaccinated than getting vaccinated - but in most years the absolute risk is quite small. If you're in a vulnerable group, then you should certainly get the vaccination.
I'd agree on vulnerable groups getting vaccinated. Not convinced by the CBA for the rest of us. But then I hate needles
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Indeed they do, but the base of support for both main parties is becoming much more socially mixed.
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
Varied depending on place I think - I reckon East Mids/South Yorkshire was the highest swing, West Mids, North East and Northwest were more Labour.
The Tories made a net gain in the West Midlands, winning a seat in Stoke and Walsall albeit losing Warwick and Leamington. Outside of Scotland I think the West Midlands was the best result for the Tories in June in the UK
If Labour are proposing to cover cost of ‘end of life care', then to get an estimate if the cost, you take the number of people ending the lives in care homes times the typical cost of care fees.
I have already pointed out -- since Blair’s time -- most people fund their own end of life care in care homes. They only get a free place if they have assets less than 23 k.
However, to bias the die in your favour, let’s assume that only 2/3 of people are paying their own care fees.
2/3 * 30000 pa * 300000 = 4.5 billion, which exceeds the amount claimed by Labour for setting up a National Care Service. I haven’t even mentioned the other costs that would need to be covered.
As I understand it, the Dilnot proposal is to cover the cost of the NURSING component of the care bill !!!! That is not the same as the care bill !!!!
Finally, I strongly dislike statements like “I suspect he has done quite a bit more thinking and number crunching into this than you have though.”
We’ve just seen (the thread header) the dangers of allowing other people to do your thinking for you. It turned out that the ONS, despite doing more thinking, were grossly wrong and many contributors on pb were closer to the mark.
People should be able to make order of magnitude estimates of the costs of politicians' proposals.
Perhaps then, we wouldn’t fall victim to so many politician’s lies or false promises ?
Your estimate has a number of problems. The main one is it looks at how much free care homes would cost - which is not what Labour were promising. Not everyone in a care home is at the end of their life.
The Dilnot proposal recommended that people make a contribution to their living costs. That seems perfectly reasonable to me given they would have had those living costs anyway.
Make your own estimates if you like, in a way it's admirable and I agree with you, but it would be wise to at least look at what other people are estimating and wondering why you are so far out.
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Indeed they do, but the base of support for both main parties is becoming much more socially mixed.
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
Varied depending on place I think - I reckon East Mids/South Yorkshire was the highest swing, West Mids, North East and Northwest were more Labour.
The Tories made a net gain in the West Midlands, winning a seat in Stoke and Walsall albeit losing Warwick and Leamington. Outside of Scotland I think the West Midlands was the best result for the Tories in June in the UK
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Labour is shifting its policy base to reflect its new core vote: the urban young, progressives, graduates, internationalistas and public sector workers.
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
And yet, despite all this stuff about Labour now being a middle-class party, they still hold the overwhelming majority of the most deprived seats (outside of Scotland and Northern Ireland anyway).
Indeed they do, but the base of support for both main parties is becoming much more socially mixed.
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
Varied depending on place I think - I reckon East Mids/South Yorkshire was the highest swing, West Mids, North East and Northwest were more Labour.
The Tories made a net gain in the West Midlands, winning a seat in Stoke and Walsall albeit losing Warwick and Leamington. Outside of Scotland I think the West Midlands was the best result for the Tories in June in the UK
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
snip
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Which means they will need to scrap/reform/pack out the House of Lords in order to get non-manifesto stuff through to Royal Assent.
I expect action on that within days of Jezza assuming office.
I suppose we can hope for a Lib-Lab coalition, to rein in the worst of the trojans?
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
If he gets in Downing Street then he will be able to do it.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the normal business of government continued. Not so now. It isn't just the government's incompetence. Various factors conspire to prevent the current lot being replaced in short order: a recent election that unresolved things rather than resolving them; the Fixed Term Parliament Act; the need to do something about Brexit on a fixed timetable; the lack of a generally acceptable alternative government.
It is worse than that I fear. We have the most dysfunctional parliament in our lifetimes. Not only is the government in disarray, but there is no clear government-in-waiting.
The Labour party has become a cult in which enormous policy differences between social democrats and Marxists have been papered over in the interests of false loyalty. Despite falling for their own hyperbole, it is unclear that one more heave will be enough.
At least in the final Major years there was a clear Blair-led government-in-waiting.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
Although the rot goes deep.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
He is unlikely to need to vote for Corbyn. Indeed, he is unlikely to get a vote at all. Britain's exit agreement will almost certainly be sorted one way or another before 2022.
I'm not sure how that works - even if the exit agreement (or lack thereof) is "sorted" by the next GE, there will be nothing stopping politicians proposing that we re-enter the Single Market even if we are outside of it for a period of time. A "No Deal" scenario by the government will almost inevitably lead to atleast one party at the next election to propose undoing the "No Deal", so it's not going to be permanently "sorted" at all.
(Whether the public would vote for that is another matter.)
Indeed. Nothing is ever sorted 'permanently' and I could well see a move to rejoin the EU developing in due course. But I think the public might not be keen to spend the next parliament debating European issues all over again.
Preparations are in full swing for UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s first visit to Moscow, but Russia does not understand why British officials had announced the visit unilaterally and prematurely, Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov told reporters on Saturday.
"True, we and British counterparts are making preparations for a visit of the UK foreign secretary to Moscow," he said. "However, it is unclear why the British have betrayed the traditional diplomatic ethics. Usually, the sides announce a visit together and closer to the agreed date of the event.".
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The rest of the Labour party is changing beyond recognition as far as I can see from a distance, as new and younger members and radical union activists like Len move things on.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
No. Barring a landslide - which is very unlikely IMO - Corbyn's majority will consist of moderate Labour MPs. He will not be able to implement an ultra left programme.
This, by a distance, is the most dysfunctional government of my lifetime. The nearest comparison would be the dog days of the Callaghan and Major regimes, but even while each vote in Parliament was uncertain then, the government.
All this as we face the greatest crisis since the War.
You much detail.
Social followed.
Official Labour policies are Socialist Democratic in the main. I have a concern about Jeremy Corbyn's lack of discipline. After the election he seemed to dismiss official positions as things that were said to get elected and of no importance. I also don't trust John McDonnell.
Corrected it for you.
I unpleasant and reactionary it might be.
Perhaps it's a matter of opinion.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
Sorry, i consider that socialist. We haven't had a UK government seeking to take substantive parts of the UK economy into public ownership since the 1940s and, combined with the trade union law repeals, its a return to beer and sandwiches at number 10 and a country run for producer interests demanding large pay settlement and for outdated working practices, and politically in hock to union barons.
Utilities and railways are publicly-owned - at least in part - in a number of countries; rent controls are pretty mainstream, though self-defeating in most cases; while the rates of personal taxation being proposed are not exactly huge, by historical or European standards. If that were it, we'd be talking pretty mainstream social democracy. But, as you say, there's every reason to believe it's a Trojan Horse. Unrepentant Marxists will not stop at that.
It's a real shame Miliband didn't run on the 2017 manifesto. I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
The country and the Labour Party should feel fortunate that the Corbynite majority are not only unwilling to use their numbers to force deselections but either don't have the motivation or organisation to prevail in selections even when there is a vacancy. Were that different, we could be looking at a very different outcome.
Comments
So it is clear from that paragraph that individuals will still pay, subject to more generous caps and limits, and it then goes on to talk about raising additional funds.
The manifesto is costed. You disagree with the costings, but can only do so because the costings are there. You also seem to have gold-plated the proposal.
Now, turn to pages 64 to 66 of the Conservative manifesto and its proposals to limit social care charges. How much will it cost?
That's the difference.
If you can't tell me what 'free end of life care' means, then arguments about its cost are meaningless.
You can make the cost any number you please, because you can say the free care is just the last 5 minutes or the last 5 weeks.
Please note, "free end of life care" is a direct quote form the Labour manifesto.
I am just asking : what does it mean?
Social democrats in the party are broadly in agreement with the 2017 manifesto, though they have some doubts about the costings. Their reservations are more related to general nervousness about what a left-wing government might do in practice. McDonnell's role is crucial here as the hard-edged politician in the team (Jeremy is an idealist who compromises only with reluctance; John M will compromise as needed). He needs to maintain a steely commitment not to go beyond what's been promised. So far, he has - for example, the temptation to promise a reversal of all benefit cuts has not been followed.
Paris claims to employ almost as many in financial services as London. It is the base for several of Europe's top ten banks. London business won't all go to Frankfurt.
She's a professional controversialist and feeds off notoriety, so, as far as her career is concerned, the more outraged the reaction to what she says the better.
That said, from a free-speech point-of-view, I do think there's a role in public discourse for someone like her, because it forces others to engage and sharpen their arguments.
https://order-order.com/2017/10/16/pidcocks-post-office-post-returned-sender/
Nick's over-egging it to say that they're no less prepared than normal but he has something of a point: there've only been two oppositions in the last third of a century that became governments. Both were ready but they were the exceptions. Most of the rest of the time, the opposition wasn't and the public saw that.
I spent the weekend with someone whose family hasn't moved house in nearly a thousand years. He told me that he was conflicted...he wants to remain in the Single Market but doesn't see any other way to achieve that but to vote for Corbyn.
He is resigned to the last 10 years of his life being fairly miserable.
I judge Corbyn and McDonnell by their record, and the record of Marxists before them, which is to say and do whatever is necessary to get their hands on the levers of power, before revealing their real agenda.
Unless you are particularly vulnerable (elderly, sick or young) there isn't much point. Eight sounds older than I remember (I thought it used to be under 5s) but haven't looked at the mortality stats in a while
highwaysindustry.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/M62-house.gif
Do you have a residency permit or Canadian passport?
Firstly, the EU market was very far from seamless in services anyway (although pretty much there in goods) and the EU marketplace isn't eliminated to us as a consequence of us not being full members of the single market.
It's just that the (broader) European market will constitute both the UK (65m) + EU (385m) + EFTA with a few extra non-tariff, and possibly in the short-term tariff, barriers in trading across it, rather than one rather incomplete regulatory regime, and a single customs union.
I remain to be convinced as to their true commitment to Parliamentary democracy, if they find they can't get what they want.
Immigration by far the biggest issue in Austrian GE
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/analyse-der-parlamentswahlen-deswegen-rueckt-oesterreich-nach-rechts-15248411.html
It's a decidedly more middle-class one.
This was their main home, but they don't own it any more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petworth_House
As an aside, a family that's lived through the civil wars of Stephen, the Yorkists and Lancastrians, and of the parliamentarians and royalists; which has survived revolts of barons, of peasants and of Jacobites; which has endured any number of wars, famines and recessions; which has seen and outlasted the social and economic changes arising from the decline of feudalism, the Reformation, the rise and fall of empire, the agricultural, industrial and information revolutions, the growth of democracy and of the high-spending state - such a family really shouldn't get too het up about what in the large scale of things is a transient administrative arrangement.
(Of course, *all* ethnically English families will have lived through the same things over the last 900 years; yours is only unusual in being able to document its having done so).
I have an effectively unoccupied in property in Manchester, and I know the Corbynistas have their eyes on stuff like that.
(Whether the public would vote for that is another matter.)
https://twitter.com/SpaJw/status/919874269403910149
*sighs*
Turns out there was a deep geological fault underneath the property, so it was easier for the contractors to build around him, so that's why they didn't buy him out.
http://www.examiner.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/house-middle-m62-11444983
There was a net swing to the Conservatives in the North of England.
I consider nationalising transport, energy and postal services to be socialist, rent and price controls, as well as large rises in corporation and personal taxation, and the scrapping of trade union laws, to be socialist.
Could it be even worse?
Sure. I don't believe they intend to stop there for a second; it's a Trojan horse to get into Government.
I think 'pretty useless' is quite an exaggeration. Clearly the effectiveness varies considerably from season to season (for much the reasons you give), but if you have the time to wade through the stats, you'll see they appear significantly to reduce mortality.
The rate of SAEs for the GSK vaccine did appear to be quite a bit higher than others (something like 75 per million compared to 7.5 per million from memory).
Most years the mortality rate for healthy individuals from flu is pretty small - but the rate of serious adverse events from the vaccine is also very small. On balance, you're taking a significantly bigger risk not getting vaccinated than getting vaccinated - but in most years the absolute risk is quite small.
If you're in a vulnerable group, then you should certainly get the vaccination.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/languages-culture/news/juncker-reveals-his-secret-weapon/
Other problems: You also made a mistake with the maths - should come to 6 billion in your calculation. Also this paper estimates 40% of people in care homes are privately funded.
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7463
The Dilnot proposal recommended that people make a contribution to their living costs. That seems perfectly reasonable to me given they would have had those living costs anyway.
Make your own estimates if you like, in a way it's admirable and I agree with you, but it would be wise to at least look at what other people are estimating and wondering why you are so far out.
1.6 million cubic metres of concrete,
52,000 tonnes of steel
47 sq km (18 sq miles), including runways.
45 million capacity rising to 100 million.
Cost £9.1 Bn.
Amazing
I wonder what rate they're paying?
Depending on the specific mix, somewhere between £66 and £74 per cube in the UK
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoke-on-Trent
I feel he took the flak of greater public spending without actually offering the benefits.
Your worries on Corbyn seem overblown to me. Even if he did want to practice unrepentant Marxism (whatever that means in practical terms) - he'd never get the rest of the Labour party to do it.
I expect action on that within days of Jezza assuming office.
I suppose we can hope for a Lib-Lab coalition, to rein in the worst of the trojans?
Sums up the present position perfectly.
Preparations are in full swing for UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s first visit to Moscow, but Russia does not understand why British officials had announced the visit unilaterally and prematurely, Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Vladimir Titov told reporters on Saturday.
"True, we and British counterparts are making preparations for a visit of the UK foreign secretary to Moscow," he said. "However, it is unclear why the British have betrayed the traditional diplomatic ethics. Usually, the sides announce a visit together and closer to the agreed date of the event.".
Very scary.