Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove now level-pegging with Corbyn in the next PM betting

SystemSystem Posts: 11,007
edited June 2018 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Gove now level-pegging with Corbyn in the next PM betting

Follow @MSmithsonPB // < ![CDATA[ // < ![CDATA[ xfunction(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(https://politicalwire.com/2018/04/15/stormy-daniels-will-be-at-cohens-court-hearing/!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); // ]]>

Read the full story here


Comments

  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    Gove Island
  • Options
    tlg86tlg86 Posts: 25,187
    Second like England (hopefully).
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018
    Jonathan said:

    Gove Island

    I'm a Brexiteer - Gove us out of the EU.

    Gove's got Talent

    Govie Sure!

    The only way is Gove

  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    All You Need Is Gove?
  • Options
    ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    brendan16 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Gove Island

    I'm a Brexiteer - Gove us out of the EU.

    Gove's got Talent

    Govie Sure!

    The only way is Gove

    Multi Fuel Gove Burns Remains.
  • Options
    he is doing a good job where he is. leave him there
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018

    he is doing a good job where he is. leave him there

    That sounds like a great idea for a reality tv show. We strand various politicians on a remote desert island, they undertake various trials in teams to get immunity from staying such as coming up with ideas as to how you build a border on the island to keep undesirables from the next door islands out, managing trade policies with the neighbouring island and constructing customs posts with materials sourced locally. They are also deprived of food so they must grow or find their own on the island by fishing or whatever.

    The public votes as to who they like most and they get to leave and the least popular is left abandoned on the island.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    MTimT said:

    All You Need Is Gove?

    What's Gove got to do with it?

    What's Gove but a second hand politician?
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    I’m the spirit of the thread:

    Alison Moyet - We all need a Gove revolution
    Joy Divisin - Gove will tear us apart
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Is he level pegging because people think he is someone the Tory masses will choose if given the chance, or because in a short terms situation he would serve as a good stop gap PM until Brexit was concluded, on the basis that the rank and file like him but his rivals would think he would not last in the top job, so they could wait a year or two?
  • Options
    Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 4,801
    FPT: as I possess no Gove puns

    I happened on the crane index reports for last year a while back: central Manchester construction is about 50% ahead of Birmingham. Commercial they are about level, but Manchester's residential boom is much stronger (as an indication, under construction and ground being cleared projects will relegate current tallest Beethams Tower to 5th by the 2020s - one core is higher as of a couple of months ago.

    I'm not totally convinced as to why the moor fires are top of the news: the mile or so near Buckton Vale is the most tightly built to the backing moors, with the vale set into the moors. If the fires spread a lot of the property nearest the moors in other places has low pasture as some species of firebreak Set against that though there is not even a hint of rain in the 7 day forecast and a consistent easterly breeze that will push fires towards inhabited areas.

  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,211

    I’m the spirit of the thread:

    Alison Moyet - We all need a Gove revolution

    Gove Resurrection, actually!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Alright, I'll get into the spirit of things.

    It will all be fine for the Tories and Brexit - Gove will come through. Travis.
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,211
    brendan16 said:

    Jonathan said:

    Gove Island

    I'm a Brexiteer - Gove us out of the EU.

    Gove's got Talent

    Govie Sure!

    The only way is Gove

    Cos you got Gove
    Gove
    Gove on your side!
    Cos you got Gove
    Gove
    Gove on your side!
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 55,267
    Oh, Michael Gove.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    edited June 2018
    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027

    I’m the spirit of the thread:

    Alison Moyet - We all need a Gove revolution

    Gove Resurrection, actually!
    Oh yeah... How did I misremember that?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Scott_P said:
    Not like you to post positive news - so we're headed for a deal then?

    :)
  • Options
    BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,987
    You gove live a bad name - Bon Jovi
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    edited June 2018
    I like to Sajid Javid
    She like to Sajid Javid
    We like to Sajid Javid
    We like to Javid!
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Shouldn't the entirety of that Telegraph headline be in quotes? That we are even heading for a deal seems pretty speculative so I assume the prospect of a deal, nevermind that it is the worst, is just Nick Timothy's opinion.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
    kle4 said:

    Shouldn't the entirety of that Telegraph headline be in quotes? That we are even heading for a deal seems pretty speculative so I assume the prospect of a deal, nevermind that it is the worst, is just Nick Timothy's opinion.

    The rest of the article is a disgrace. He's accusing Ireland of threatening the Good Friday Agreement and saying we need to "toughen up". Says that access to the single market "should be free". Accuses the cabinet of allowing Europe to "divide and rule" us. He's an absolute nationalist fanatic.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/27/time-playing-nice-eu-britains-good-faith-exploited-europeans/
  • Options
    El_CapitanoEl_Capitano Posts: 3,870
    edited June 2018
    So "Nick Timothy has an opinion" is the lead in the Telegraph?

    My years as a journalist were spent editing publications decidedly less prestigious than the Tele but still... that's pretty weak sauce.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Amy word out of Germany on Merkel's prospects? Last I saw people were linking that the CSU rival was less popular than her, so I'd assume things would be rolling back a bit.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 62,374
    For those with money on him (currently) Gove is a many splendoured thing...
  • Options
    hunchmanhunchman Posts: 2,591

    Oh, Michael Gove.

    Quite, maybe Mr Gove could explain some of his dubious links in the following document:

    https://www.theyworkforyou.com/regmem/?p=11858
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    kle4 said:

    Amy word out of Germany on Merkel's prospects? Last I saw people were linking that the CSU rival was less popular than her, so I'd assume things would be rolling back a bit.

    During the last four years Merkel has turned everything into shite.

    Including the German football team.
  • Options
    LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457
    edited June 2018
    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,571
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
    It'll soon be 'man bites dog' time - thank feck for the World Cup!
  • Options
    ralphmalphralphmalph Posts: 2,201
    kle4 said:

    Amy word out of Germany on Merkel's prospects? Last I saw people were linking that the CSU rival was less popular than her, so I'd assume things would be rolling back a bit.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/migrant-policy-conflict-could-spell-the-end-for-merkel-a-1214503.html

    Lengthy article but shows the current state of play.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639

    kle4 said:

    Amy word out of Germany on Merkel's prospects? Last I saw people were linking that the CSU rival was less popular than her, so I'd assume things would be rolling back a bit.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/migrant-policy-conflict-could-spell-the-end-for-merkel-a-1214503.html

    Lengthy article but shows the current state of play.
    Danke
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    I respected May for including it as it seemed obvious whatever merits it might have (with a bit of work), it would, well, become something called the dementia tax, and would upset part of her ownbase. Of course, clearly she only did so as she thought she could risk that, and that was wrong, since as you say it seemed to come down to soft or hard brexit positions in the end.
  • Options
    The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,979

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no brexit better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    I voted Tory last year, yet I voted Remain in 2016 as did many other people. I thought Corbyn was a huge risk in terms of Defence and some of the other positions he has on various aspects of the economy did not appeal. The problem I have with Labour at the moment is they have some reasonable ideas and then they throw in outdated baggage from years ago. Labour's sole purpose should be redistribution in this increasingly digital and likely AI age. AI will mean we produce more as an economy as we will be collectively more productive, some will be left behind and will need a hand up as ever. I am not one of these people who thinks AI will mean half the population is unemployed, it just means some current jobs will be automated in some fashion. New jobs will be created to service these automated machines and so the magic of building a new economy will continue.
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639

    kle4 said:

    Amy word out of Germany on Merkel's prospects? Last I saw people were linking that the CSU rival was less popular than her, so I'd assume things would be rolling back a bit.

    During the last four years Merkel has turned everything into shite.

    Including the German football team.
    All political careers end in failure etc etc
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,211

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
    It'll soon be 'man bites dog' time - thank feck for the World Cup!
    Den Mann bisst der Hund :)
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
  • Options
    oldpoliticsoldpolitics Posts: 455

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    We certainly need a way of taxing accrued capital, particularly when it's been accrued through house price inflation.

    Not sure making a virtue of cutting inheritance tax for the average upper middle class person, but simultaneously raising it for all those with assets of any appreciable value to almost 100%, if they die slowly and in a way which requires mainly social care rather than health care, is easily defensible, though.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    It's almost as if the Tories didn't attack Labour over the death tax. Those that live by the sword...
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media does what it does, governments (and oppositions) have to overcome it at times (though sometimes it is a good thing they don't) in order to persuade people, and all sides face it. If they'd thought the election was closer they'd probably have left it out, or at least been a lot vaguer, and pushed it through afterwards.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    No they don't, that's the media's job. Proposals should be scrutinised.

    What shouldn't have happened is putting a proposal out that had not been argued for, that people knew nothing about etc - either make a policy in advance and then make the case for it or pledge to hold a review into it before taking action.

    Since this policy had not been scrutinised it would have been entirely reasonable to put into the manifesto something about holding a review into the cost of care homes and leave it at that.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited June 2018


    No they don't, that's the media's job. Proposals should be scrutinised.

    What shouldn't have happened is putting a proposal out that had not been argued for, that people knew nothing about etc - either make a policy in advance and then make the case for it or pledge to hold a review into it before taking action.

    Since this policy had not been scrutinised it would have been entirely reasonable to put into the manifesto something about holding a review into the cost of care homes and leave it at that.

    It wasn't 'scrutinised', a parody of it was trashed. Admittedly the BBC in particular seems to think the two are synonymous.

    Scrutiny should mean: (a) understanding it, (b) working out its implications, and (c) providing a coherent and fair summary of its pros and cons. There was none of that.

    Still, the media are the media. Expecting them to provide scrutiny or objectivity is like expecting Trump to be presidential. Theresa May and her advisers should have known that, and got there first. Instead they did nothing to prepare the ground, didn't even brief Conservative MPs on the policy, and wasted days whilst Caroline Lucas and even Labour had the field to themselves with their dishonest attack lines. It was a spectacular political failure on the part of Theresa May - she even achieved the remarkable result of enraging and losing the votes of those who would have benefited from the policy.
  • Options
    brendan16brendan16 Posts: 2,315
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    In my view all assets should be counted equally for all means testing. It's also crazy that someone who owns a £3m home can have that ignored when means testing for benefits including pension credits and council tax benefit. Yet a retired renter who has a modest pension or cash savings over £16k for example gets nothing.

    Why should working taxpayers - many of whom rent - have to fund you in retirement from age 67 - because you aren't prepared to downsize from your £3m house to a £2m property to release cash to pay your bills. Its not turn government's job to preserve inheritances or bankroll the asset wealthy in their dotage?

    If you don't like it - don't claim benefits! A house can be turned into a cash in the same way as any other asset - you sell it or place a charge on it or do equity release.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 31,571

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
    It'll soon be 'man bites dog' time - thank feck for the World Cup!
    Den Mann bisst der Hund :)
    Der Mann beißt den Hund?
  • Options
    bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 21,826
  • Options
    Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 49,211

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
    It'll soon be 'man bites dog' time - thank feck for the World Cup!
    Den Mann bisst der Hund :)
    Der Mann beißt den Hund?
    Ooops, sorry!

    Den Mann beisst der Hund :)
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826


    No they don't, that's the media's job. Proposals should be scrutinised.

    What shouldn't have happened is putting a proposal out that had not been argued for, that people knew nothing about etc - either make a policy in advance and then make the case for it or pledge to hold a review into it before taking action.

    Since this policy had not been scrutinised it would have been entirely reasonable to put into the manifesto something about holding a review into the cost of care homes and leave it at that.

    It wasn't 'scrutinised', a parody of it was trashed. Admittedly the BBC in particular seems to think the two are synonymous.

    Scrutiny should mean: (a) understanding it, (b) working out its implications, and (c) providing a coherent and fair summary of its pros and cons. There was none of that.

    Still, the media are the media. Expecting them to provide scrutiny or objectivity is like expecting Trump to be presidential. Theresa May and her advisers should have known that, and got there first. Instead they did nothing to prepare the ground, didn't even brief Conservative MPs on the policy, and wasted days whilst Caroline Lucas and even Labour had the field to themselves with their dishonest attack lines. It was a spectacular political failure on the part of Theresa May - she even achieved the remarkable result of enraging and losing the votes of those who would have benefited from the policy.
    What else do you expect in the heat and frenzy of an election campaign? That's why I said it should have been scrutinised before the manifesto was released.

    Had the proposal come out three months earlier it could have been subject to proper debate and initial misconceptions could be cleared up. There's simply no time to do that during the campaign.
  • Options
    Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820

    What else do you expect in the heat and frenzy of an election campaign? That's why I said it should have been scrutinised before the manifesto was released.

    Had the proposal come out three months earlier it could have been subject to proper debate and initial misconceptions could be cleared up. There's simply no time to do that during the campaign.

    You are right.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Thank you.
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    edited June 2018
    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    Indeed, with current migration rates the working age population remains stable, it is the over 65s that have the projected rise of millions:

    https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/978302412363624448?s=19
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Nothing has changed! Nothing has changed!

    https://twitter.com/MsHelicat/status/1012085485542559745?s=19

    So 'political wonk has opinion' and 'PM said no new updates' are the headlines tonight? Blimey, things really are slowing as we approach the recess.
    It'll soon be 'man bites dog' time - thank feck for the World Cup!
    Den Mann bisst der Hund :)
    Der Mann beißt den Hund?
    O Level flashback. Please cease and desist forthwith.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
  • Options
    kle4kle4 Posts: 91,639
    Atlas said:

    I read the view here that what defines a true Tory includes monarchism and unionism. So what are they in the party waiting for who consider Irish unification or Scottish independence an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? If the party splits over one of these questions, their bit will call itself something different from "Conservative" or "Tory" even if they're the majority, right? Surely all can agree that those among the true Tories, on this definition, who are currently Brexiteers will back Remain if that's what's necessary to keep the union?

    It does seem an odd stance at times, though of course Brexit has only been official policy for them for a comparitively short time.

    Personally if I had thought Remaining would guarantee the permanence of the UK Union I would not have voted Leave, but I don't think it would have. Certainly fresh pressures are being exerted as a result of Brexit, but best case scenario that testing fire will prove strengthening in the end.

    In any case the question no longer seems to be about backing remain, since that ship has already sailed through parliament.

    As to who gets to keep the name in the event of a split, I imagine that would depend on who flounced out - I recall similar discussions over what a split Labour might call itself.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Of particular interest this week in the next PM betting stakes will be Conservative Home's June Tory membership survey sent out today which has head to head match ups in the next Tory leader poll between Boris, Hunt, Gove and Javid. Should be interesting when the results come out in the next few days and I have a suspicion Gove will beat all 3 of his rivals.

    https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2018/06/should-williamson-get-the-defence-spending-rise-he-wants-plus-introducing-next-tory-leader-run-offs-our-monthly-survey-is-out.html
  • Options
    dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 27,945
    edited June 2018

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    Atlas said:

    I read the view here that what defines a true Tory includes monarchism and unionism. So what are they in the party waiting for who consider Irish unification or Scottish independence an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? If the party splits over one of these questions, their bit will call itself something different from "Conservative" or "Tory" even if they're the majority, right? Surely all can agree that those among the true Tories, on this definition, who are currently Brexiteers will back Remain if that's what's necessary to keep the union?


    Even almost all Brexiteers want to keep the union, it is only on a forced choice of staying in a Federal EU or allowing Scotland and NI to depart they would choose Brexit which they would argue would be the only way of keeping a truly independent UK anyway.

    In any case it is a false choice given the poor SNP results in the post Brexit GE particularly
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So what do we do when they get old ?

    More and more and more and more immigrants ?

    An immigrants ponzi scheme ?
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    No the dementia tax was the main reason the Tories lost their majority, I canvassed on the doorsteps and there was a clear shift mid campaign after it was announced away from the Tories. It was an abysmal policy and will never be repeated. If more money is needed for personal social care in the future it will come from national insurance or council or income tax primarily
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    No the dementia tax was the main reason the Tories lost their majority, I canvassed on the doorsteps and there was a clear shift mid campaign after it was announced away from the Tories. It was an abysmal policy and will never be repeated. If more money is needed for personal social care in the future it will come from national insurance or council or income tax primarily
    It was the right policy IMO but it frightened some of the Tories' most valuable voters.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    edited June 2018
    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    If someone owns a house worth millions and moves from it into a care home then that home will be sold to pay for care costs (unless a spouse over 60 lives there) in full down to the last £23,250. It is personal care though which the voters have quite rightly decided should not be touched, if you are still living at home and receiving care then your home should not be liable for costs
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 44,531

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Qu
    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So what do we do when they get old ?

    More and more and more and more immigrants ?

    An immigrants ponzi scheme ?
    No, it's not a Ponzi scheme, just a smoothing of the population pyramid, replacing the low fertility period between the mid Sixties and mid Eighties.

    It is not just a matter of cost, Social care requires a workforce. It is an area where little can be automated.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So the system is working. If people come, work, go home and get replaced by someone new who comes, works, goes home and gets replaced we don't lose out.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:


    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)

    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So what do we do when they get old ?

    More and more and more and more immigrants ?

    An immigrants ponzi scheme ?
    And if we're looking for a solution how about the UK starts to live within its means.

    I know this is radical idea which cannot be countenanced by most people.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    No the dementia tax was the main reason the Tories lost their majority, I canvassed on the doorsteps and there was a clear shift mid campaign after it was announced away from the Tories. It was an abysmal policy and will never be repeated. If more money is needed for personal social care in the future it will come from national insurance or council or income tax primarily
    It was the right policy IMO but it frightened some of the Tories' most valuable voters.
    It was the right policy dreadfully presented, sprung on people with no warning and not argued for.

    If you want to do a major change like this it takes time to argue through the merits and flaws before proceeding.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    Well the retirement age will have risen to 68 by 2050
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Atlas said:

    I read the view here that what defines a true Tory includes monarchism and unionism. So what are they in the party waiting for who consider Irish unification or Scottish independence an acceptable price to pay for Brexit? If the party splits over one of these questions, their bit will call itself something different from "Conservative" or "Tory" even if they're the majority, right? Surely all can agree that those among the true Tories, on this definition, who are currently Brexiteers will back Remain if that's what's necessary to keep the union?

    The parties are broad tents.

    I'm a Tory because I believe in individual freedom, and meritocratic low and fair taxes.

    I'm a republican for the same reason. That which makes me Conservative makes me believe in an elected Head of State. Others disagree but that's what makes us people and not robots. People are more complicated than a single box.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,943
    AndyJS said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    No the dementia tax was the main reason the Tories lost their majority, I canvassed on the doorsteps and there was a clear shift mid campaign after it was announced away from the Tories. It was an abysmal policy and will never be repeated. If more money is needed for personal social care in the future it will come from national insurance or council or income tax primarily
    It was the right policy IMO but it frightened some of the Tories' most valuable voters.
    No the dementia tax was an appalling policy and I was ashamed to have to try and sell such an unconservative policy on the doorsteps, especially after we had made such strides with the inheritance tax cut only a year or two before, the only good thing from my perspective to come out of the general election result was it forced May to ditch it
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046

    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So the system is working. If people come, work, go home and get replaced by someone new who comes, works, goes home and gets replaced we don't lose out.
    As we have net immigration in the hundreds of thousands each year its at more than replacement rate.

    And all those extra immigrants themselves require housing and public services and accrue benefits under the welfare state.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    Foxy said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:



    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)

    Qu
    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So what do we do when they get old ?

    More and more and more and more immigrants ?

    An immigrants ponzi scheme ?
    No, it's not a Ponzi scheme, just a smoothing of the population pyramid, replacing the low fertility period between the mid Sixties and mid Eighties.

    It is not just a matter of cost, Social care requires a workforce. It is an area where little can be automated.
    It really is a ponzi scheme because I never hear anyone say "we'll let immigrants in for a few years and then stop them when the population pyramid is smoothed out".

    Now lets look at your low fertility period of 1965-1985 - people born then will now be in their 30s, 40s, and 50s with more populous groups already entering the workforce.

    As to automation that might well be the case in some areas but when immigration has been used as a way to reduce capital investment forgive me if I have my doubts.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    AndyJS said:

    brendan16 said:

    kle4 said:

    MaxPB said:

    Scott_P said:
    From Nick Timothy, the man that gave us the dementia tax and lost us the election. I'll wait for the end result.
    You need to let that go - aides come up with ideas all the time, if leaders cannot filter out the bad ones that's they fault. (Not that the idea was entirely without merit). He may well have been very bad at his job, but 'giving' us any policies is not on his head even if he inspired them.
    I’ll go further.
    If this country is serious about sorting itself out it needs the dementia tax.
    The dementia tax did not play at all in a GE always destined to split on brexit lines. (Yes I know Corbin is not a remainer but his party was seen to be more soft bexits than hard brexits. The manner in which May called the election, to crush remainer saboteurs and no deal better than bad deal, played more of a part than dementia tax)
    Quite right - a very fair and sensible policy badly timed (you don't just dump it in a manifesto with no build up) and poorly presented. They could have just said we need to find a fairer way to fund social care and introduced a bill post consultation making the change.p

    Why should someone who is worth milions - because they own a certain sort of asset (a house worth millions) - get free home care paid for by taxes on working renters and those paying down huge mortgages. Yet someone who rents a council flat but has £40k cash in the bank - perhaps recently inherited from a friend - have to pay the entire cost of their home care?

    The current system is nothing short of evil!
    I agree. The media have a lot to answer for in whipping up a storm over the proposals during the election.
    The media whipped up nowt. Several astute Tory posters on here instantly spotted its toxicity.
    If we want to sort this out, it needs explaining over time. That includes an information campaign on our long-term demographic position.
    Which would necessitate a case made for immigration, rather than chasing easy headlines.
    What happens when the immigrants get old ?

    Get even more immigrants ?
    Many return home having made their money, as many East Europeans have. We simply need more working age taxpayers, as Foxy's graph illustrates.
    What is your solution?
    Well the retirement age will have risen to 68 by 2050
    By 2050 it will be 70.
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922

    Alistair said:

    ?

    Is he offering odds on that ?

    Because I've got some money saying it wont be.

    Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
    Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
    Okay then.

    How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?

    If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.

    If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
    I think you will make a goodly amount of money Mr A_R :)
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    ?

    Is he offering odds on that ?

    Because I've got some money saying it wont be.

    Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
    Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
    Okay then.

    How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?

    If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.

    If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
    I think you will make a goodly amount of money Mr A_R :)
    As someone living in the USA what would you consider the likelihood of individual states banning (or effectively banning) abortion within the next few years ?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395
    Current temperature:

    Cardiff 21
    Bury St Edmunds 11
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    Pulpstar said:

    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.

    It was 2044 until it was brought forward last year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And I'm sure that wasn't the first time it had been changed.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027

    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So the system is working. If people come, work, go home and get replaced by someone new who comes, works, goes home and gets replaced we don't lose out.
    Remember Auf wiedersehen, Pet?

    image
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 12,982
    Foxy said:
    Qu'ils ramassent des fraises.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046

    But those who return home are already being more than replaced by new immigrants.

    So the system is working. If people come, work, go home and get replaced by someone new who comes, works, goes home and gets replaced we don't lose out.
    Remember Auf wiedersehen, Pet?

    image
    And what was the actual out-turn ?
  • Options
    AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 29,395

    Pulpstar said:

    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.

    It was 2044 until it was brought forward last year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And I'm sure that wasn't the first time it had been changed.
    I try not to think about dates like 2044. Seems like science fiction.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.

    It was 2044 until it was brought forward last year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And I'm sure that wasn't the first time it had been changed.
    I try not to think about dates like 2044. Seems like science fiction.
    When what was once futuristic science fiction was set in what is now two decades ago it gets confusing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE06rNkxlks
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903

    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.

    It was 2044 until it was brought forward last year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And I'm sure that wasn't the first time it had been changed.
    I try not to think about dates like 2044. Seems like science fiction.
    When what was once futuristic science fiction was set in what is now two decades ago it gets confusing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE06rNkxlks
    Space vehicle engineering tech is horribly behind where it should have been. I'm glad Musk is finally righting that wrong
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922
    UK car production rises in May on higher domestic demand
    British car production rose 1.3 per cent in May as rising demand at home offset a small drop in exports.

    Some 137,225 vehicles were made last month, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.

    Cars made for domestic use rose 12.8 per cent to 29,918, while exports fell 1.5 per cent to 107,307.

  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    ?

    Is he offering odds on that ?

    Because I've got some money saying it wont be.

    Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
    Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
    Okay then.

    How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?

    If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.

    If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
    I think you will make a goodly amount of money Mr A_R :)
    As someone living in the USA what would you consider the likelihood of individual states banning (or effectively banning) abortion within the next few years ?
    There will be a few states - Utah, one or two others - that will probably completely ban it.

    Another two dozen states will restrict it more than it is now.

    And the rest will see no change.

    I think this may be a "be careful what you wish for" for the Republicans, though.
  • Options
    TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 3,840
    It was always mildly amusing watching that show around the time period it was set (might have been a year or so later) in fairness space technology did seem to go at quite a pace around when they made it but after the moon landings it seemed to fizzle out. Maybe we need another space race....
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    AndyJS said:

    Pulpstar said:

    What's the latest the government can put up the retirement age for any cohort.
    Currently it is 68 for anyone retiring past 2038.

    It was 2044 until it was brought forward last year.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-40658774

    And I'm sure that wasn't the first time it had been changed.
    I try not to think about dates like 2044. Seems like science fiction.
    When what was once futuristic science fiction was set in what is now two decades ago it gets confusing:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE06rNkxlks
    Space vehicle engineering tech is horribly behind where it should have been. I'm glad Musk is finally righting that wrong
    Yes but computing etc is miles ahead of what was imagined.

    Bizarrely that sci fi scene of a spaceship interior looks incredibly dated rather than futuristic in part because of that now.
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    It was always mildly amusing watching that show around the time period it was set (might have been a year or so later) in fairness space technology did seem to go at quite a pace around when they made it but after the moon landings it seemed to fizzle out. Maybe we need another space race....

    We have one, between the billionaires rather than between nations. That's why technology is starting to develop again - competition is healthy.
  • Options
    LordOfReasonLordOfReason Posts: 457


    No they don't, that's the media's job. Proposals should be scrutinised.

    What shouldn't have happened is putting a proposal out that had not been argued for, that people knew nothing about etc - either make a policy in advance and then make the case for it or pledge to hold a review into it before taking action.

    Since this policy had not been scrutinised it would have been entirely reasonable to put into the manifesto something about holding a review into the cost of care homes and leave it at that.

    It wasn't 'scrutinised', a parody of it was trashed. Admittedly the BBC in particular seems to think the two are synonymous.

    Scrutiny should mean: (a) understanding it, (b) working out its implications, and (c) providing a coherent and fair summary of its pros and cons. There was none of that.

    Still, the media are the media. Expecting them to provide scrutiny or objectivity is like expecting Trump to be presidential. Theresa May and her advisers should have known that, and got there first. Instead they did nothing to prepare the ground, didn't even brief Conservative MPs on the policy, and wasted days whilst Caroline Lucas and even Labour had the field to themselves with their dishonest attack lines. It was a spectacular political failure on the part of Theresa May - she even achieved the remarkable result of enraging and losing the votes of those who would have benefited from the policy.
    Another important dimension on it, a Labour Party with a majority polls predicting will get a landslide, and they are serious about sorting this issue out, at least laying some groundwork, would have proposed the same policy. The tories and libdems would have dubbed it dementia tax and gone to battle against it.

    A lack of consensus about what is going to make this country poorer for the coming generations, and lack of consensus around viable long term solutions to those problems. Demographic time bomb. How globalisation is making a mug of us. The slide from industrial to post industrial workforce.

    For decades our governments answer to the demographic timebomb has been immigration. How unpopular that policy, and unpopular changes it will bring to society is clear in the brexit vote. Problems caused by barely mitigated transition from industrial to post industrial workforce also clearly there in both Brexit vote and election of trump.

    We are about to transform from an unproductive nation suffering at the hands of globalisation, literally being raped by the same places we raped during our days of Empire, to a Global Britain, some sort of economic superpower enjoying only the best of globalisation, none of its worst. Whilst detail on how this is actually achieved is still sketchy, excuse my scepticism.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 48,027
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,903
    Just checked the draw. We really DO want to lose against Belgium lol
  • Options
    Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Pulpstar said:

    Just checked the draw. We really DO want to lose against Belgium lol

    A draw with 2 yellow cards ;)
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922
    As they sat around the table working on the Treaty of Rome, did they ask "How best can we avoid another European war?" or "What can we build that will take advantage of the United States?"
  • Options
    rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 53,922
    Pulpstar said:

    Just checked the draw. We really DO want to lose against Belgium lol

    I would have thought it would be good to come first for the second round... and then bad for the Quarter Finals.
  • Options
    another_richardanother_richard Posts: 25,046
    rcs1000 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Alistair said:

    ?

    Is he offering odds on that ?

    Because I've got some money saying it wont be.

    Perhaps someone should explain to him that sending abortion back to a states rights issue (and there's no guarantee that would happen) doesn't mean it will be banned. Restricted perhaps (as it is in almost all Western countries) but banned is a very different matter.
    Given the incredible and repeatedly ruled illegal efforts that states have taken to make abortion a practical impossibility I'd say 20 states making it flat out illegal would be an under count.
    Okay then.

    How about £50 bet with loser donating to PB ?

    If 20+ US states have banned abortion by the end of 2019 I'll pay.

    If under 20 US states have baned abortion by the end of 2019 you pay.
    I think you will make a goodly amount of money Mr A_R :)
    As someone living in the USA what would you consider the likelihood of individual states banning (or effectively banning) abortion within the next few years ?
    There will be a few states - Utah, one or two others - that will probably completely ban it.

    Another two dozen states will restrict it more than it is now.

    And the rest will see no change.

    I think this may be a "be careful what you wish for" for the Republicans, though.
    That's pretty much how I see things as well.
This discussion has been closed.