Corbyn needs a fat-cat scandal, a Conservative minister enriching him/herself, before he can really differentiate himself and break through.
Surely all Corbyn has to do is wait for more resignations or for more Boris gaffs? I am expecting it to get really bumpy for the Brexiteers once we get 12 months away from the WTO exit and stuff with long lead times become a problem that all the Will eat cake and still have it lies cannot survive.
We are heading for Canada style FTA, not WTO terms
Really? When? March 2018? Because we need it by then.
March 2019 you mean? Actually given the 2 year transition period May has proposed not even then. All we need is some moves towards one by then.
We leave in March 2019, we need a deal agreed way before then.
No we don't and we won't, we start a transition deal for 2
Er, we do. Agreeing a transitional dealal ones - each largely dictated by the EU27.
As long as we accept ECJ jurisdiction and free movement for the 2 year transition period we will get that transition period, there is nothing else to discuss on that.
The final FTA deal will be negotiated before and during that time.
A transition only exists .
No, a transition is a transition until a deal is agreed not a follow-on from a deal.
A transition is a bridgeto.
We do know, a FTA.
No, we don’t knowed. Time is very tight. Companies will start making big, far-reaching, irreversible decisions at the start of next year.
Yes we do know as even Barnier has -canada-style-deal-with-eu-barnier/
We only get to discuss an FTA once the money is sorted and there is more clarity on the Irish border and citizens’ rights. The EU will want a lot more from the UK before any FTA is sorted. There is absolutely no certainty at this stage.
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
Yes, you'd use taxes levied on many hard working families to ensure that those with property wealth could pass on more wealth to their fortunate children. It astounds me that Labour was able to campaign effectively against a progressive proposal they should have been supporting.
People paying their way is entirely Tory and the so called dementia tax was in tune with this. The problem was in the hamfisted was it was floated and the abject failure to explain the principle or practice properly.
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
The biggest disaster of May's Dementia tax fiasco is that she used her negative-Midas touch to turn good ideas to shit.
It is going to be an issue that is kicked into the long grass, when it really needs to be addressed. This is how the world is ageing:
Christ, Question Time is bloody awful these days. Largely because of the audience just shouting and braying everytime someone says something they don't like.
This edition of QT from 1984 shows how polite the audience used to be.
The most shocking thing to me is that UKIP still have any council seats to lose!
They didn't, UKIP had won it but the councillor jumped ship to the Tories. Random question, is the Study Centre still there? a camp there used to be standard for all Southampton primary school kids.
Relatively good result for the Tories in Wandsworth/Thamesfield.
John Locker (C) 1,910 (48.9%) Sally Warren (Lab) 1,101 (28.2%) Ryan Mercer (LD) 619 (15.9%) Di McCann (Grn) 275 (7.0%)
Pretty good result there certainly for the Tories, if they hold Wandsworth next May London Tories will breathe a big sigh of relief!
This is the best ward in Putney for the Tories so it may not be typical of the rest of the borough. I wonder what their candidate's position on Brexit was?
Labour should certainly be getting close in a council by election if they want to win overall control of Wandsworth next year. They failed to really challenge the Tories tonight.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
Relatively good result for the Tories in Wandsworth/Thamesfield.
John Locker (C) 1,910 (48.9%) Sally Warren (Lab) 1,101 (28.2%) Ryan Mercer (LD) 619 (15.9%) Di McCann (Grn) 275 (7.0%)
Interested to hear your take on why that's relatively good for the Tories? At best it's "not as bad as it could have been".
No swing from the general election if the ElectoralCalculus figures are correct.
But a drop in vote share of 3% (though that could be due to the different electorate). It's not really good for Tories wanting Putney back or Labour in terms of winning Wandsworth as a whole, the only party that can smile on those figures is the Yellows.
Relatively good result for the Tories in Wandsworth/Thamesfield.
John Locker (C) 1,910 (48.9%) Sally Warren (Lab) 1,101 (28.2%) Ryan Mercer (LD) 619 (15.9%) Di McCann (Grn) 275 (7.0%)
Interested to hear your take on why that's relatively good for the Tories? At best it's "not as bad as it could have been".
No swing from the general election if the ElectoralCalculus figures are correct.
But a drop in vote share of 3% (though that could be due to the different electorate). It's not really good for Tories wanting Putney back or Labour in terms of winning Wandsworth as a whole, the only party that can smile on those figures is the Yellows.
The 38-40% range for the Tory share in the polls is quite remarkable, they seem to have a firm grip on the leave vote that seems robust in spite of the travails. The Lab and LibDems should be hoovering up more and of comfort to CCHQ is the way the Tory share is holding up. Perhaps JC has peaked the Lab intentions?
I find the whole BTL system pretty disappointing, frankly. Not something I'd wish to be involved in.
Interest rates shouldn't be relied upon for an easy retur.
I fear the obsession with IHT is a consequence of the failure of our society to pass on the notion of entrepreneurship and real aspiration.
Entrepreneurship is a rare talent. Most small businesses fail in their first five years, and lots of people rightly recognise that they are not cut out for it and wouldn't even think of trying in the first place. Pension investing is meant to be safe and boring.
Tremendous service from the staff who stepped in whilst the RMT decided to strike for no significant reason - the TOC have said there is no plan to move to DOO.
Bonkers. Did a quick straw poll. No support for the workers from customers. None.
Not even the new Class 707s?
Nobody flies 707s any more Sunil. Dreamliners, 380s and 350XWBs are the in thing these days for long haul (although the A330 takes some beating at 9,000 miles range)
Yes, the Tories are in complete meltdown after numerous self-inflicted wounds. It reminds me most of the dog days of the Major years, when much of the media narrative had turned decisively against a government that was little more than a laughing stock.. To add to that, in the political cycle we're to all practical purposes mid term, in the same sense that 1967 was mid term for the 1964-70 government. The policies of endless austerity now being openly enacted betray carrot of false hope that the Conservatives were able to dangle in 2015. Osborne's simple mantras no longer work (not that they're really being used).
And yet they're still on average only 2% behind. A new leader to replace the current hapless one could surely turn that margin around.
What is holding Labour back? 1. A Marmite leader, who revolts some in the same measure as he enthuses others. That puts a natural ceiling on his potential support, something that Blair never had. 2. Being unable to any longer play "the GE is not about Brexit" card, in the sense that it's difficult any longer to pretend that the UK would exit the EU if the colour of the Government changed in the next two years. That's why too much of the C2DEs are not decisively behind Labour now, enough to offset much of their gains amongst the ABC1s.
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
The 38-40% range for the Tory share in the polls is quite remarkable, they seem to have a firm grip on the leave vote that seems robust in spite of the travails. The Lab and LibDems should be hoovering up more and of comfort to CCHQ is the way the Tory share is holding up. Perhaps JC has peaked the Lab intentions?
Talking of polls, aren't we overdue a new YouGov? I thought they were coming out twice a month now.
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
I think it was Fraser Nelson that had the line that we can't allow the Iranian government to decide on a British Foreign Secretary's fate. I would agree with that sentiment, I just think Boris should go because he's not very good at his job.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
I think it was Fraser Nelson that had the line that we can't allow the Iranian government to decide on a British Foreign Secretary's fate. I would agree with that sentiment, I just think Boris should go because he's not very good at his job.
On a general issue why do politicians feel the need to spout off on things they don't really know about.
Wouldn't it be more sensible if they occasionally said "I'm sorry but I don't know about this issue but I will look into it later".
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
I think it was Fraser Nelson that had the line that we can't allow the Iranian government to decide on a British Foreign Secretary's fate. I would agree with that sentiment, I just think Boris should go because he's not very good at his job.
I wouldn't, that's a hopeless line of argument. It's like saying no one should have lost their job over the Singapore 1942 debacle, because we can't have the Japanese army deciding an English officer's fate. His core responsibility is the safeguard of British subjects overseas, ffs. Best we send Priti over there to negotiate an off the record deal of Johnson's scalp for Mrs Z-R's freedom.
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
I think it was Fraser Nelson that had the line that we can't allow the Iranian government to decide on a British Foreign Secretary's fate. I would agree with that sentiment, I just think Boris should go because he's not very good at his job.
On a general issue why do politicians feel the need to spout off on things they don't really know about.
Wouldn't it be more sensible if they occasionally said "I'm sorry but I don't know about this issue but I will look into it later".
The PM (and her predecessors) frequently do at PMQs “I thank the honourable member for his question and agree (general waffle) and in this case, if I may I will write to him once I have had a chance to study the specific details.”
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
...
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance tax, and the receipt thereof.
I don't think struggling families, for example, should be paying for my wealthy grandmother's care when she, and if needs be, us, her family, can well afford to pay for it. I would prefer that the social welfare system is protected for those who cannot afford to pay for their own care.
It is not 'struggling families' who should be paying it or indeed families who already pay substantial amounts from their deceased relatives estate, especially for residential care who should be paying even more for it but salaried employees through National Insurance.
NI kicks in at a very low level. The overwhelming majority of individuals pay NI.
Again, why should the poor, and especially those without an owned home, pay for my grandmother's social care when she has significant wealth, including that tied up in her home? Just so she can leave it to her family? Frankly I would find that shameful.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
@HYUFD Doubtful, re the first point. It’s been posted on here that net migration’s been an issue for voters going back to the 70s.
Don’t doubt that voters want IT abolished, but they are also willingly to pay tax for more investment in public services as well. Other taxes can go up besides IT.
DT may have been that, but there’s little evidence that core Tory voters left the Tories in droves over it.
As I said I would use National Insurance to pay for social care and the NHS.
...
Theft of peoples' estate and private property is anything but Tory it is the very essence of socialism and for once Corbyn resisted ideology and did something sensible in opposing it. That was one area May was more socialist than even Labour was.
Except it wasn't theft, was it.
Nor was it socialist. It was a sensible way of allowing people to fund their own social care (self sufficiency). It also prevented the awful situation of families having to sell houses to fund home care whilst struggling with ill relatives.
What is the point of saving for a rainy day if you expect someone else to pay for your shelter when that day comes?
National Insurance is supposed to pay for a rainy day when you need healthcare and social care etc, that is the whole reason it was created in the first place.
Some people are obsessed with inheritance
It is not 'struggling families' who should be paying it orNational Insurance.
NI kicks in at a very low level. The overwhelming majority of individuals pay NI.
Again, why should the poor, and especially those without an owned home, pay for my grandmother's social care when she has significant wealth, including that tied up in her home? Just so she can leave it to her family? Frankly I would find that shameful.
The poor largely won't pay it, if they are unemployed they don't pay NI and if they are on a low wage very little NI.
Families already pay for care costs out off all a 'hypothetical' grandmother's assets over £23k, including the home if in residential care, it is completely wrong to include the family home for personal care costs too even if you find it 'shameful' I most certainly do not. As a traditional conservative I believe in the inheritance principle and being able to pass on something to your children and grandchildren.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
He knows it, you know it, I know it.
But in my experience there's lots of people who think it does.
And they can get bloody annoyed when you tell them it doesn't.
Only just caught up with the news that Iran have specifically said Z-R will face espionage charges as a result of Johnson's words about her. Surely he has to go now?
I think it was Fraser Nelson that had the line that we can't allow the Iranian government to decide on a British Foreign Secretary's fate. I would agree with that sentiment, I just think Boris should go because he's not very good at his job.
On a general issue why do politicians feel the need to spout off on things they don't really know about.
Wouldn't it be more sensible if they occasionally said "I'm sorry but I don't know about this issue but I will look into it later".
Perhaps he did know what he was talking about, though.
Not when Northern Ireland has four times as much trade with GB than with the Republic.....
Well we could fund the Catalans and Basques and Flemings I guess in retaliation?
Its not as if the EU members speak with one voice on their fellow members regional issues. The Spanish caught the Belgians having a series of backchannels to the Catalan government leadership weeks before some of those same people fled to Brussels. Madrid will not forget it.
As regards the headline article, Labour isn't yet running away with the polls because of one thing, Jeremy Corbyn.
Trumpton: It is hard to over-emphasise the scale of the investigation into Trump and his coterie, nor the sheer amount of international sharing of information going on. Robert Mueller has access to lot of US domestic intelligence but also plenty from friendly agencies overseas.
Those overseas agencies loathe Trump. I mentioned one agency (European) that was prepared to pay a lot of cash for personally incriminating videos of Donald. I don't think they ever got it but others have. Question is, such things don't relate to the current investigation but they'd do enormous damage. So what to do?
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
Only care costs which would eat into the £100k of assets the government promised you could keep in its manifesto before the estate is liable for the costs of care or which would come from the sale of the family home in assessment for personal care costs.
One poll and such a small movement it could be nothing. But I've always thought the longer she remains against such adversity and tough times with her party that the general public might start showing sympathy for her or having increasing respect for her. I mean she is clearly a fighter and some admire qualities like that.
It could just be that the public sees some of the other options out there and know there isn't much better as well.
One poll and such a small movement it could be nothing. But I've always thought the longer she remains against such adversity and tough times with her party that the general public might start showing sympathy for her or having increasing respect for her. I mean she is clearly a fighter and some admire qualities like that.
It could just be that the public sees some of the other options out there and know there isn't much better as well.
Added to which the public don’t pay much attention - they form general impressions of competence and expect politicians to get on with the job they’ve been given - Brexit and the new Parliament.
Newspapers need news “Nothing much has changed” (the truth) doesn’t sell polls or newspapers
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
He knows it, you know it, I know it.
But in my experience there's lots of people who think it does.
And they can get bloody annoyed when you tell them it doesn't.
I don't really see the point of the non-hypothecation argument, though. Obviously it would be critically important for funds held by a bank or insurance company, say, because of the protection it provides if the bank goes bust. But UK governments don't go bust, so why does it matter? Do we think it is morally more ok for a government to resile from its predecessors promise if there's no hypothecation? If so, why?
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
Only care costs which would eat into the £100k of assets the government promised you could keep in its manifesto before the estate is liable for the costs of care or which would come from the sale of the family home in assessment for personal care costs.
You believe people with assets (especially housing assets) should be subsidised by people who don't have assets.
You think that the poor should have significantly more money taken out of their wages and given to the wealthy, to allow them to pass on that wealth to their own children.
Right.
And you think that's reasonable? You think that is conservatism?
The ideology of the tory client vote is fascinating. Frightening, even.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
Only care costs which would eat into the £100k of assets the government promised you could keep in its manifesto before the estate is liable for the costs of care or which would come from the sale of the family home in assessment for personal care costs.
You believe people with assets (especially housing assets) should be subsidised by people who don't have assets.
You think that the poor should have significantly more money taken out of their wages and given to the wealthy, to allow them to pass on that wealth to their own children.
Right.
And you think that's reasonable? You think that is conservatism?
The ideology of the tory client vote is fascinating. Frightening, even.
Most people do have assets and a majority (ie 60%) have housing assets. Those who earn the most would be paying the most National Insurance anyway, not the poor and the unemployed and pensioners of course pay no National Insurance at all.
Clearly nothing much is happening in British politics at the moment as the crying/trumpeting about BrExit continues unabated despite the views on practically no-one of here have shifted even one millimetre since the referendum, which means its really all just posturing.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
Only care costs which would eat into the £100k of assets the government promised you could keep in its manifesto before the estate is liable for the costs of care or which would come from the sale of the family home in assessment for personal care costs.
You believe people with assets (especially housing assets) should be subsidised by people who don't have assets.
You think that the poor should have significantly more money taken out of their wages and given to the wealthy, to allow them to pass on that wealth to their own children.
Right.
And you think that's reasonable? You think that is conservatism?
The ideology of the tory client vote is fascinating. Frightening, even.
Most people do have assets and a majority (ie 60%) have housing assets. Those who earn the most would be paying the most National Insurance anyway, not the poor and the unemployed and pensioners of course pay no National Insurance at all.
So, welfare for the wealthy.
An absurd, unconservative ideology rotting away the core of the party.
Japan has an even more ageing population and pays for social care through social insurance.
With respect, I don't understand what you're arguing for. Compulsory social insurance to pay for care?
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
We already have compulsory social insurance, it is called National Insurance. That is what should pay for any further rises in care costs.
Even by the standards of your Turbo Trolling that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. You know full well that NI is neither hypothecated nor raises enough to fund the things you falsley say it funds if it was.
Of course it can if rises are linked to rises in care costs and all employees already pay it.
Do you think all care costs should be covered by NI?
Only care costs which would eat into the £100k of assets the government promised you could keep in its manifesto before the estate is liable for the costs of care or which would come from the sale of the family home in assessment for personal care costs.
You believe people with assets (especially housing assets) should be subsidised by people who don't have assets.
You think that the poor should have significantly more money taken out of their wages and given to the wealthy, to allow them to pass on that wealth to their own children.
Right.
And you think that's reasonable? You think that is conservatism?
The ideology of the tory client vote is fascinating. Frightening, even.
Most people do have assets and a majority (ie 60%) have housing assets. Those who earn the most would be paying the most National Insurance anyway, not the poor and the unemployed and pensioners of course pay no National Insurance at all.
So, welfare for the wealthy.
An absurd, unconservative ideology rotting away the core of the party.
No support for the inheritance principle and the family, the very bedrock of conservatism.
The 60% with housing assets are also the average and not just the wealthy.
Comments
http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/03/theresa-may-secretly-agrees-to-pay-50-billion-eu-divorce-bill-6899289/
www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ6NPDCbqPE
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/928772448300011520
Gospel Oak (Camden) result:
LAB: 57.5% (+10.5)
LDEM: 25.7% (+18.7)
CON: 15.2% (-2.4)
EDEM: 1.6% (+1.6)
Lab hold.
I guess my question is: If people need expensive care at the end of their life, who do you think should pay for it?
Goodnight ...
Yes, the Tories are in complete meltdown after numerous self-inflicted wounds. It reminds me most of the dog days of the Major years, when much of the media narrative had turned decisively against a government that was little more than a laughing stock.. To add to that, in the political cycle we're to all practical purposes mid term, in the same sense that 1967 was mid term for the 1964-70 government. The policies of endless austerity now being openly enacted betray carrot of false hope that the Conservatives were able to dangle in 2015. Osborne's simple mantras no longer work (not that they're really being used).
And yet they're still on average only 2% behind. A new leader to replace the current hapless one could surely turn that margin around.
What is holding Labour back?
1. A Marmite leader, who revolts some in the same measure as he enthuses others. That puts a natural ceiling on his potential support, something that Blair never had.
2. Being unable to any longer play "the GE is not about Brexit" card, in the sense that it's difficult any longer to pretend that the UK would exit the EU if the colour of the Government changed in the next two years. That's why too much of the C2DEs are not decisively behind Labour now, enough to offset much of their gains amongst the ABC1s.
https://twitter.com/HTScotPol/status/928731067053375490?s=17
Wouldn't it be more sensible if they occasionally said "I'm sorry but I don't know about this issue but I will look into it later".
Again, why should the poor, and especially those without an owned home, pay for my grandmother's social care when she has significant wealth, including that tied up in her home? Just so she can leave it to her family? Frankly I would find that shameful.
Families already pay for care costs out off all a 'hypothetical' grandmother's assets over £23k, including the home if in residential care, it is completely wrong to include the family home for personal care costs too even if you find it 'shameful' I most certainly do not. As a traditional conservative I believe in the inheritance principle and being able to pass on something to your children and grandchildren.
But in my experience there's lots of people who think it does.
And they can get bloody annoyed when you tell them it doesn't.
As regards the headline article, Labour isn't yet running away with the polls because of one thing, Jeremy Corbyn.
Trumpton: It is hard to over-emphasise the scale of the investigation into Trump and his coterie, nor the sheer amount of international sharing of information going on. Robert Mueller has access to lot of US domestic intelligence but also plenty from friendly agencies overseas.
Those overseas agencies loathe Trump. I mentioned one agency (European) that was prepared to pay a lot of cash for personally incriminating videos of Donald. I don't think they ever got it but others have. Question is, such things don't relate to the current investigation but they'd do enormous damage. So what to do?
It could just be that the public sees some of the other options out there and know there isn't much better as well.
Newspapers need news “Nothing much has changed” (the truth) doesn’t sell polls or newspapers
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/11/three-events-will-determine-theresa-may-s-fate?amp=
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5065207/PM-battles-shore-crisis-hit-Cabinet-reshuffle.html
You think that the poor should have significantly more money taken out of their wages and given to the wealthy, to allow them to pass on that wealth to their own children.
Right.
And you think that's reasonable? You think that is conservatism?
The ideology of the tory client vote is fascinating. Frightening, even.
Last YouGov was 41/43/7
So changes are actually:
Con -1, Lab 0, LD -1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/10/legal-costs-capped-for-those-who-cant-pay-energy-bills
Oh... and good morning everyone
An absurd, unconservative ideology rotting away the core of the party.
New Thread!
The 60% with housing assets are also the average and not just the wealthy.