@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
That's not a dream. That's someone eating way too much late night cheese.....
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
At a time of austerity, it was inappropriate to have been cutting taxes at all - whether via higher personal allowances or lower tax rates. As a consequence , too heavy a burden fell on reductions in public spending.
I have sympathy with the WASPI campaign, and I can well believe that many didn't realise their pension would be coming later, particularly those who are affected by the acceleration under the coalition government.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
As has been pointed out this generation has enjoyed the benefit of huge rises in house prices, final salary pensions (which they may well have had in their own right of inherited their spouse's on death), free NHS, a wider welfare state and more. Women until this change were on average getting a state pension for ten years longer than men as they got it 5 years earlier and lived on average five years longer.
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
Most will have a pittance and are paying for it , still no connection to state pension comparison with other similar countries. UK is the worst by a mile. What part of that do you fail to understand.
Most countries have better insurance systems for state pensions than we do. That is a case for higher National Insurance if anything
You are really joking now, if I paid my NI to a private company I would have had gold plated health care and a shedload for state pension. Instead I get peanuts pension and a failing NHS.
Some people remain extremely bitter at being denied the State Pension - and other age-related benefits such as Winter Fuel Payments & free Bus Passes- at the age of 65. I am aware of one of my own contemporaries born in mid-1954 who is absolutely fuming that he will not receive his pension until a couple of months short of being 66. To get his revenge on George Osborne - who he blames for having brought forward the increase in retirement age - he has resolved to 'go sick' for three months upon reaching 65 - so giving himself full pay for that period. He has calculated that that income will offset his loss of circa 10 months State Pension! It seems to particularly rankle with him that people from his own school year born a mere six months or so earlier - ie Autumn 1953 - are totally unaffected by the changes. I suppose he has a point.
Worked the other way round when I was about 18, as far as National Service was concerned. 'It was decided that those born on or after 1 October 1939 would not be required, but conscription continued for those born earlier whose call-up had been delayed for any reason. In November 1960 the last men entered service, as call-ups formally ended on 31 December 1960.’ So someone born 1st Oct 39 could go to work and earn a reasonable (for the time) wage, whereas someone born a day earlier would spend two years earning a pittance and quite possibly in a life-threatening situation. Cut-offs happen.
I don't disagree at all - though I can also understand the bitterness and resentment of those who find themselves at the wrong end of the 'cut off'! Reverting to the example I have cited, to some extent I am surprised we have not heard more about people 'going sick' for a few months upon reaching their mid-60s with a view to getting income to offset the delayed pension. Few people of that age are likely to be in perfect health - most will have some ailment to justify not turning up for work - stress etc.
To be fair, I saved up a bit of holiday entitlement so that I could retire on the last day of April, rather than on my birthday early in May! Basically, just because I wanted to.
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
Most will have a pittance and are paying for it , still no connection to state pension comparison with other similar countries. UK is the worst by a mile. What part of that do you fail to understand.
Most countries have better insurance systems for state pensions than we do. That is a case for higher National Insurance if anything
You are really joking now, if I paid my NI to a private company I would have had gold plated health care and a shedload for state pension. Instead I get peanuts pension and a failing NHS.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
HYUFD is here to channel Conservative Central Office press releases.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
The word Dream together with the word Ticket always indicates a pervasive uneasiness about the perversity of the two characters.
Boris is the life and soul of the party but not the man you want driving you home at the end of the evening - Amber Rudd.
Sounds a risky dream ticket - as both now are in marginal seats with Boris's becoming more marginal at every election. I expect he wishes he had got a safe seat in Essex now rather than one in west London whose demographic is changing rapidly..
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
As has been pointed out this generation has enjoyed the benefit of huge rises in house prices, final salary pensions (which they may well have had in their own right of inherited their spouse's on death), free NHS, a wider welfare state and more. Women until this change were on average getting a state pension for ten years longer than men as they got it 5 years earlier and lived on average five years longer.
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
Help the needy - not the 'entitled'.
What bollox, you only realise house price when you pop your clogs so it means beggar all unless you think people should sell their homes to fund idiots like you. They bought a home that they live in you halfwit and would have spent many years totally skint to manage it as well. In those days you had to work for every penny you got , no plethora of benefits, handouts , help to buy houses , freebies etc.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
HYUFD is here to channel Conservative Central Office press releases.
In some respects but he is about the only person in the UK to think Boris could be pm (other than Boris) and unite the conservative party and country. He has a blind spot over the toxicity of Boris, not least from a large number of conservative mps
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to ensure Corbyn does not take power. I’d say a bad Brexit is now pretty much factored into polling. Only the truly deranged - or totally insulated - think it will deliver any significant benefits. The next gamechanger from where I sit looks to be who the Tories choose to succeed May. Someone like Johnson could open the door for Labour, otherwise I’d expect things to carry on pretty much as they are now, with slow Labour leakage and a pretty solid Tory vote.
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
The word Dream together with the word Ticket always indicates a pervasive uneasiness about the perversity of the two characters.
I have sympathy with the WASPI campaign, and I can well believe that many didn't realise their pension would be coming later, particularly those who are affected by the acceleration under the coalition government.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
As has been pointed out this generation has enjoyed the benefit of huge rises in house prices, final salary pensions (which they may well have had in their own right of inherited their spouse's on death), free NHS, a wider welfare state and more. Women until this change were on average getting a state pension for ten years longer than men as they got it 5 years earlier and lived on average five years longer.
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
Help the needy - not the 'entitled'.
All the more reason to spend it while you can. Means testing is just another tax on the prudent.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
At a time of austerity, it was inappropriate to have been cutting taxes at all - whether via higher personal allowances or lower tax rates. As a consequence , too heavy a burden fell on reductions in public spending.
I think the Coalition got very little credit for what was a stunningly clever and attractive tax cut, but one that was largely invisible after the first pay cheque of the tax year.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
HYUFD is here to channel Conservative Central Office press releases.
In some respects but he is about the only person in the UK to think Boris could be pm (other than Boris) and unite the conservative party and country. He has a blind spot over the toxicity of Boris, not least from a large number of conservative mps
'What bollox, you only realise house price when you pop your clogs so it means beggar all unless you think people should sell their homes to fund idiots like you. They bought a home that they live in you halfwit and would have spent many years totally skint to manage it as well. In those days you had to work for every penny'
Not bollox - you can downsize or use equity release. If you want to leave an inheritance for your 65 year old kids fine - but its not the job of the state to fund that wish. Why should the state provide pension credit, free council tax and free dental and glasses care to people who own £3m houses as can happen now - as every other asset bar your house (which can be turned into cash) is taken into account in the means test.
Its not unreasonable for the asset rich to use those assets first - and the state help those with no assets. And assets must now include housing over a certain threshold - cos houses can be turned into cash too! Sell your house - buy a flat more suitable for an elderly person - don't expect the state to give you benefits to maximise your 65 year old kids inheritance when you pass on. We aren't talking about frail people in their 80s - but often very fit and healthy people in their early 60s.
Sorry houses are wealth - and young renters shouldn't be expected to subsidise the asset rich when that asset wealth was generated by massive rises in house prices while they just sat on their sofa.
I know we seem as a nation to care more about house prices and inheritances than providing a fair and decent social care system - as the last election showed. But maybe that has to change.
'What bollox, you only realise house price when you pop your clogs so it means beggar all unless you think people should sell their homes to fund idiots like you. They bought a home that they live in you halfwit and would have spent many years totally skint to manage it as well. In those days you had to work for every penny'
Not bollox - you can downsize or use equity release. If you want to leave an inheritance for your 65 year old kids fine - but its not the job of the state to fund that wish. Why should the state provide pension credit, free council tax and free dental and glasses care to people who own £3m houses as can happen now - as every other asset bar your house (which can be turned into cash) is totally ignored.
Its not unreasonable for the asset rich to use those assets first - and the state help those with no assets. And assets must now include housing over a certain threshold - cos houses can be turned into cash too! Sell your house - buy a flat more suitable for an elderly person. We aren't talking about frail people in their 80s - but often very fit and healthy people in their early 60s.
Sorry houses are wealth - and young renters shouldn't be expected to subsidise the asset rich when that asset wealth was generated by massive rises in house prices while they just sat on their sofa.
I know we seem as a nation to care more about house prices and inheritances than providing a fair and decent social care system - as the last election showed. But maybe that has to change.
Your house is already assessed for residential care bills, which is where the biggest social care costs come, it just is not assessed for personal at home care costs
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
al media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
HYUFD is here to channel Conservative Central Office press releases.
In some respects but he is about the only person in the UK to think Boris could be pm (other than Boris) and unite the conservative party and country. He has a blind spot over the toxicity of Boris, not least from a large number of conservative mps
If Boris is so toxic why would the Tories poll 38% under him compared to 35% under Mogg, 30% under Gove and 29% under Hunt and Javid?
It's also quite special to want equality and moan about getting it.
One reason why women earn less over their working lives is because they have children, stop working for a bit, go part-time or don’t take promotions because of their other responsibilities. It is not just down to discrimination. If we make choices we have to accept the consequences of those choices. That is what being an adult means.
Easy to say when you are loaded, not quite so easy when you have little to nothing. Always amazes me that on this site it is always the poor's own fault they are stupid and have nothing and thanks I am all right Jack, I am super smart and loaded.
.
Thatell.
If you add private pensions to the state pension then average retirement for UK pensioners rises to just over 60% of former career earnings, just below the OECD average.
The new single-tier pension will also be worth 30% more than the current state pension
Why would you possibly count private pension to try and justify the crap UK pension. The point is our pension is among the worst in the civilised world.
As with automatic workplace enrollment most workers will now have private pensions going forward.
Most will have a pittance and are paying for it , still no connection to state pension comparison with other similar countries. UK is the worst by a mile. What part of that do you fail to understand.
Most countries have better insurance systems for state pensions than we do. That is a case for higher National Insurance if anything
You are really joking now, if I paid my NI to a private company I would have had gold plated health care and a shedload for state pension. Instead I get peanuts pension and a failing NHS.
@Southamobserver If as I expect May signs the Deal on December 14th and uses the Christmas/New Year media blackout to forestall scrutiny we'll get more data. Chequers hit the Tory polling immeadiately as the wave function of the Unicorn collapsed it turned out the box had a dead rat in it. However have things moved on since then ? It really wouldn't surprise me if May got an initial bounce out of it as everyone is just desperate to move on. It's only in mid to late January when the deal becomes unpopular as it's neither Remain nor a unicorn that we'll get first glimpse of the future in my view.
It seems pretty clear that there is a solid 40% of voters who will vote Tory come what may - many of them to
I take the opposite view, I think May provided she gets a deal will keep the Tories ticking along but Boris may be the only Tory with the charisma and ability to build a broad enough Tory tent to win a majority against Labour in 2022
Johnson keeps the 2017 Labour coalition alive, while splitting the Tories. Heck, even I might consider voting Labour to stop him becoming PM.
Johnson does not split the Tory vote that is the point, even though some Tory MPs dislike him. He is the only Tory potential leader who has got a higher Tory voteshare against Corbyn Labour than May in the polls as he brings Leavers behind the Tories without being as extreme as Mogg for swing voters.
As far as I am aware you are not a Tory voter anyway but you are a staunch Remainer
Hodges reports rumour that Boris and Rudd are planning a Dream Ticket.
The word Dream together with the word Ticket always indicates a pervasive uneasiness about the perversity of the two characters.
Boris is the life and soul of the party but not the man you want driving you home at the end of the evening - Amber Rudd.
Sounds a risky dream ticket - as both now are in marginal seats with Boris's becoming more marginal at every election. I expect he wishes he had got a safe seat in Essex now rather than one in west London whose demographic is changing rapidly..
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour shotions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal sa support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sure that is what they will do (though I am far less confident than you that enough Labour MPs will back it for it to pass), but I think the fundamental point remains that if all those who say No deal is apocalyptic and cannot be countenanced actually meant what they said, then they would not behave as they are.
He clearly doesn't think no deal is the worst of all options. He thinks risking no deal is worth it if, by opposing the deal, Labour has the chance, and a chance only not a certainty, of getting into power. I'm not going to entirely begrudge a partisan putting partisan interests above all else, and many may well agree on the basis that a bad deal is worse than no deal, but I am finding those who try making a virtue of how much they think a no deal would be terrible but are content to risk it (rightly or wrongly) to be rather irritating, much like the ERG's constant moanings. At least some of the ERG actually would be happy with no deal.
We don't absolutely know for certain Labour would oppose what May agrees anyway, we know Labour oppose a Chequers Deal but that is in terms of the future trading relationship to be negotiated in a transition period, that does not necessarily mean Labour will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement and transition period as Labour does not oppose a backstop for NI.
I am pretty confident they would oppose the withdrawal agreement and transition period, even if it doesn't make sense when we finally see it (it might make sense, it might not). We've seen plenty of otherwise sensible people claim very seriously that the most important thing is defeating and bringing down the government whenever there is an opportunity. Sure they could try it after a withdrawal agreement is approved, but if the agreement is not approved it looks even better.
Actually the reverse, if the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop are not approved the DUP and the ERG have no reason to no confidence the Tory government and May, if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved they have more reason to no confidence the government as the last resort to stop the backstop
Sounds a risky dream ticket - as both now are in marginal seats with Boris's becoming more marginal at every election. I expect he wishes he had got a safe seat in Essex now rather than one in west London whose demographic is changing rapidly..
I think a marginal seat should be considered a big plus for a leadership candidate. Surely a leader with popular appeal and huge national attention should be able to increase their local vote share and bring home one of the marginals you need overall? Also if you do lose it is actually much better in the long run to be Ed Balls than Ed Miliband, even if it doesn't seem so on the night.
'What bollox, you only realise house price when you pop your clogs so it means beggar all unless you think people should sell their homes to fund idiots like you. They bought a home that they live in you halfwit and would have spent many years totally skint to manage it as well. In those days you had to work for every penny'
Not bollox - you can downsize or use equity release. If you want to leave an inheritance for your 65 year old kids fine - but its not the job of the state to fund that wish. Why should the state provide pension credit, free council tax and free dental and glasses care to people who own £3m houses as can happen now - as every other asset bar your house (which can be turned into cash) is totally ignored.
Its not unreasonable for the asset rich to use those assets first - and the state help those with no assets. And assets must now include housing over a certain threshold - cos houses can be turned into cash too! Sell your house - buy a flat more suitable for an elderly person. We aren't talking about frail people in their 80s - but often very fit and healthy people in their early 60s.
Sorry houses are wealth - and young renters shouldn't be expected to subsidise the asset rich when that asset wealth was generated by massive rises in house prices while they just sat on their sofa.
I know we seem as a nation to care more about house prices and inheritances than providing a fair and decent social care system - as the last election showed. But maybe that has to change.
Your house is already assessed for residential care bills, which is where the biggest social care costs come, it just is not assessed for personal at home care costs
Yes - and totally ignored for all welfare assessments such as pension credits which lead to other entitlements like free council tax and dental and eye care. Even if you own an asset - a house - which could be worth millions.
As for care - far more people get home care than ever need residential care.
Can you also explain to me why someone in their 80s on a state pension who rents a council flat but inherits £50k from a friend has to pay for their entire home care costs up front (as they have a small pot in cash above the savings threshold) but someone who owns a £3 million house but only £22k in savings also on a state pension gets it for free.
That is our current system - someone who is 60 times wealthier gets free home care but the poorer person has to pay just because of how those assets are made up. I don't know what sort of 'fair' system you think that is - but its frankly evil! Neither has to be personally impacted - the 65 year old kids inheriting would via a lower inheritance.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
al media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
HYUFD is here to channel Conservative Central Office press releases.
In some respects but he is about the only person in the UK to think Boris could be pm (other than Boris) and unite the conservative party and country. He has a blind spot over the toxicity of Boris, not least from a large number of conservative mps
If Boris is so toxic why would the Tories poll 38% under him compared to 35% under Mogg, 30% under Gove and 29% under Hunt and Javid?
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
It was a commitment in the Tory 2010 manifesto to raise the National Insurance threshold
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour shotions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal sa support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sth no deal.
We don't absolutely know for certain Labour would oppose what May agrees anyway, we know Labour oppose a Chequers Deal but that is in terms of the future trading relationship to be negotiated in a transition period, that does not necessarily mean Labour will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement and transition period as Labour does not oppose a backstop for NI.
I am pretty confident they would oppose the withdrawal agreement and transition period, even if it doesn't make sense when we finally see it (it might make sense, it might not). We've seen plenty of otherwise sensible people claim very seriously that the most important thing is defeating and bringing down the government whenever there is an opportunity. Sure they could try it after a withdrawal agreement is approved, but if the agreement is not approved it looks even better.
Actually the reverse, if the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop are not approved the DUP and the ERG have no reason to no confidence the Tory government and May, if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved they have more reason to no confidence the government as the last resort to stop the backstop
I was referring to Labour. It's not important that they succeed in a no confidence, though they would prefer that, what is important is they avoid any association with the withdrawal agreement or eventual deal, so they can pretend they could have gotten everything everyone wanted.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
Your own interpretation is just as nakedly partisan. The government did it, not the Liberal Democrats. As with many things the LDs did not and have not received much credit for the ideas they had and the positive contributions they made. But nor can they claim government decisions of the time as theirs and theirs alone. That's precisely what you seem very mad about the Tories doing, but it is ok when the LDs do it? How is that not a prime example of the classic partisan hypocrisy of getting mad at others for things one's own side does?
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
It was a commitment in the Tory 2010 manifesto to raise the National Insurance threshold
'What bollox, you only realise house price when you pop your clogs so it means beggar all unless you think people should sell their homes to fund idiots like you. They bought a home that they live in you halfwit and would have spent many yt frail people in their 80s - but often very fit and healthy people in their early 60s.
Sorry hnge.
Your house is already assessed for residential care bills, which is where the biggest social care costs come, it just is not assessed for personal at home care costs
Yes - and totally ignored for all welfare assessments such as pension credits which lead to other entitlements like free council tax and dental and eye care. Even if you own an asset - a house - which could be worth millions.
As for care - far more people get home care than ever need residential care.
Can you also explain to me why someone in their 80s on a state pension who rents a council flat but inherits £50k from a friend has to pay for their entire home care costs up front (as they have a small pot in cash above the savings threshold) but someone who owns a £3 million house but only £22k in savings also on a state pension gets it for free.
That is our current system - someone who is 60 times wealthier gets free home care but the poorer person has to pay just because of how those assets are made up. I don't know what sort of 'fair' system you think that is - but its frankly evil! Neither has to be personally impacted - the 65 year old kids inheriting would via a lower inheritance.
The scenario you pose is almost negligible, anyone who owns a £3 million house will almost certainly have hundreds of thousands of pounds of savings they will have to put towards personal care costs and if they need residential care all their £3 million house value will be liable to care costs. Someone who rents a council flat is also unlikely to be receiving a £50k inheritance tax windfall from a friend and if they need residential care their property will of course not be liable for their care costs at all as they do not own it.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
It was a commitment in the Tory 2010 manifesto to raise the National Insurance threshold
It does show the Tories were looking to reduce the tax and National Insurance burden on low earners not adamantly opposed to it as PClipp seemed to suggest
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberosting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
Your own interpretation is just as nakedly partisan. The government did it, not the Liberal Democrats. As with many things the LDs did not and have not received much credit for the ideas they had and the positive contributions they made. But nor can they claim government decisions of the time as theirs and theirs alone. That's precisely what you seem very mad about the Tories doing, but it is ok when the LDs do it? How is that not a prime example of the classic partisan hypocrisy of getting mad at others for things one's own side does?
Yes, it was called a Coalition Government for a reason
John McDonnell says 'No Deal' would be the 'worst of all options' and Labour would negotiate a deal 'to protect jobs and the economy' if the government cannot
Well of course he would say that. Though if no deal is the worse of all options, and parliament does not vote for a GE so that Labour can negotiate a deal such as McDonnell wants, then surely it follows Labour shotions which may well lead to no deal.
Or of course they would vote down the deal sa support so it can negotiate its own deal with the EU
Yes I am sth no deal.
We don't absolutely know for certain Labour would oppose what May agrees anyway, we know Labour oppose a Chequers Deal but that is in terms of the future trading relationship to be negotiated in a transition period, that does not necessarily mean Labour will oppose the Withdrawal Agreement and transition period as Labour does not oppose a backstop for NI.
I am pretty confident they would oppose the withdrawal agreement and transition period, even if it doesn't make sense when we finally see it (it might make sense, it might not). We've seen plenty of otherwise sensible people claim very seriously that the most important thing is defeating and bringing down the government whenever there is an opportunity. Sure they could try it after a withdrawal agreement is approved, but if the agreement is not approved it looks even better.
Actually the reverse, if the Withdrawal Agreement and the backstop are not approved the DUP and the ERG have no reason to no confidence the Tory government and May, if the Withdrawal Agreement is approved they have more reason to no confidence the government as the last resort to stop the backstop
I was referring to Labour. It's not important that they succeed in a no confidence, though they would prefer that, what is important is they avoid any association with the withdrawal agreement or eventual deal, so they can pretend they could have gotten everything everyone wanted.
No, McDonnell has been absolutely clear what is important is Labour wins a no confidence vote so it has a chance to win a general election and form a new government. What is not so important is opposing the withdrawal agreement backstop and transition period, especially if Labour support enables it to pass thus annoying the ERG and DUP and making it more likely the government will lose a no confidence vote.
The trading agreement and eventual deal will be negotiated in the transition period anyway, if the government won the confidence vote it is that they would oppose when and if it was eventually agreed
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and dirty many of our small towns have become. As one Tory once observed " We must have something else the socialists will promise everything. "
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberosting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
Your own interpretation is just as nakedly partisan. The government did it, not the Liberal Democrats. As with many things the LDs did not and have not received much credit for the ideas they had and the positive contributions they made. But nor can they claim government decisions of the time as theirs and theirs alone. That's precisely what you seem very mad about the Tories doing, but it is ok when the LDs do it? How is that not a prime example of the classic partisan hypocrisy of getting mad at others for things one's own side does?
Yes, it was called a Coalition Government for a reason
You’ve remembered. That’s not in the CCO playbook, surely!
I have sympathy with the WASPI campaign, and I can well believe that many didn't realise their pension would be coming later, particularly those who are affected by the acceleration under the coalition government.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
As has been pointed out this generation has enjoyed the benefit of huge rises in house prices, final salary pensions (which they may well have had in their own right of inherited their spouse's on death), free NHS, a wider welfare state and more. Women until this change were on average getting a state pension for ten years longer than men as they got it 5 years earlier and lived on average five years longer.
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
Help the needy - not the 'entitled'.
Yeah - I'd be fine with limiting the transition assistance to those on low incomes and with relatively few assets. That would, I imagine, significantly reduce the numbers requiring assistance.
I have sympathy with the WASPI campaign, and I can well believe that many didn't realise their pension would be coming later, particularly those who are affected by the acceleration under the coalition government.
It is true also that the women affected have been working and earning under a very unequal playing field for most of their lives. They've had limited chance or potential to adapt. The optics of male ministers ignoring them aren't great either.
But on the overall change Alistair mentions, it does seem that the govt made reasonable efforts and there was widespread reporting on the issue.
I'd be okay with some kind of transitional assistance for those affected worst by the changes.
As has been pointed out this generation has enjoyed the benefit of huge rises in house prices, final salary pensions (which they may well have had in their own right of inherited their spouse's on death), free NHS, a wider welfare state and more. Women until this change were on average getting a state pension for ten years longer than men as they got it 5 years earlier and lived on average five years longer.
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
Help the needy - not the 'entitled'.
Yeah - I'd be fine with limiting the transition assistance to those on low incomes and with relatively few assets. That would, I imagine, significantly reduce the numbers requiring assistance.
The underlying point is that no transition assistance is either appropriate or required,
I think the Coalition got very little credit for what was a stunningly clever and attractive tax cut, but one that was largely invisible after the first pay cheque of the tax year.
That was largely because council tax always went up by enough to wipe out any gain from the "cut"
'The scenario you pose is almost negligible, anyone who owns a £3 million house will almost certainly have hundreds of thousands of pounds of savings they will have to put towards personal care costs and if they need residential care all their £3 million house value will be liable to care costs. Someone who rents a council flat is also unlikely to be receiving a £50k inheritance tax windfall from a friend and if they need residential care their property will of course not be liable for their care costs at all as they do not own it.'
Most people who own £3m homes will probably have hundreds of thousands in savings? Really - talk about a bubble? Those homes could have been inherited or bought for literally thousands in the 1950s and 1960s - they didn't pay £3m for them personally?
You didn't always need to be an oligarch or investment banker to buy a nice house in Richmond or Surbiton - it used to be something ordinary people on pretty average salaries did. Let alone parts of Hackney - where prices have spiralled but in the 1980s no one much wanted to live there. And they have got very lucky thanks to crazy house price inflation way in excess of wage growth.
The fact that it is possible anyway - means it shouldn't happen. Should millionaires get pension credit and pay no council tax - cos they are millionaires!
How many of these women getting their state pension are living in rented flats with no money? They should perhaps get help - but sadly this is a consequence of equality as men and women get treated equally for state pension purposes. Many men who worked doing tough jobs in industry or down mines might not live until they are 65 - but they aren't the middle class entitled.
'The scenario you pose is almost negligible, anyone who owns a £3 million house will almost certainly have hundreds of thousands of pounds of savings they will have to put towards personal care costs and if they need residential care all their £3 million house value will be liable to care costs. Someone who rents a council flat is also unlikely to be receiving a £50k inheritance tax windfall from a friend and if they need residential care their property will of course not be liable for their care costs at all as they do not own it.'
Most people who own £3m homes will probably have hundreds of thousands in savings? Really - talk about a bubble? Those homes could have been inherited or bought for literally thousands in the 1950s and 1960s - they didn't pay £3m for them personally?
You didn't always need to be an oligarch or investment banker to buy a nice house in Richmond or Surbiton - it used to be something ordinary people on pretty average salaries did. Let alone parts of Hackney - where prices have spiralled but in the 1980s no one much wanted to live there. And they have got very lucky thanks to crazy house price inflation way in excess of wage growth.
The fact that it is possible anyway - means it shouldn't happen. Should millionaires get pension credit and pay no council tax - cos they are millionaires!
How many of these women getting their state pension are living in rented flats with no money? They should perhaps get help - but sadly this is a consequence of equality as men and women get treated equally for state pension purposes. Many men who worked doing tough jobs in industry or down mines might not live until they are 65 - but they aren't the middle class entitled.
Equity release is easy enough. It's a lifetime's worth of free money that they have made no effort to earn, after all.
As an aside on WASPI if you haven't seen the latest Labour campaign video then do https://twitter.com/JennieGenSec/status/1056227855414239233?s=20 Ignore the fact it's sub Trumpian cobblers based on Class War and offers no solutions. It's great. Watch it with the sound off. It's really about how wretchedly shabby and
Now Corbyn is promising everything and the Tories as the hegemonic governing party of the last 250 years can never match that ( which is why that Red Bus is ripping them apart ) so they must have something. And WASPI isn't something credible. There are bigger and better electoral fish to fry.
That’s a very effective video Utterly tendentious balderdash of course, but will get shared on social media and convince a lot of people
Agreed - a very slick. I also agree that it's tendentious though with some grains of truth at it's heart.
Question is though, what have the Tories got that will counter this?
Will it make people vote because of the video.. Not sure about that. People are not completely stupid.. or are they?
The video has been made by Corbynistas and will largely be shared and watched amongst Labour voters anyway, the key swing voters for Corbyn to win a majority are 45-55 year olds living in market towns or suburbs, they are unlikely to be spending much time watching Corbynista social media
However good to see some Tories tweeting under the line pointing out to Jennie Formby Tories have taken the lowest earners out of tax etc
You mean the Liberal Democrats took the lowest earners out of tax, Mr HY. The Tories were strongly opposed to this at the time. Then, when finally they realised it was not only a good thing, but also a popular one, the Tory spin machine went into overdrive and claimed all the credit for themselves.
Why do you keep posting on here, and proving the Tories to be liars?
Your own interpretation is just as nakedly partisan. The government did it, not the Liberal Democrats. As with many things the LDs did not and have not received much credit for the ideas they had and the positive contributions they made. But nor can they claim government decisions of the time as theirs and theirs alone. That's precisely what you seem very mad about the Tories doing, but it is ok when the LDs do it? How is that not a prime example of the classic partisan hypocrisy of getting mad at others for things one's own side does?
Nonsense. In a negotiation each side can justifiable take credit for the top priorities that they insisted be part of the deal.
Comments
If they are in need then the welfare system for those of working age can help out - I see no issue with helping those on low incomes who are in rented accommodation without savings or assets on a transitional basis. But how many live in expensive houses worth 50 or more times what they paid for them in the 60s or 70s which remain ignored in all means tests- could they downsize?
Cos perhaps we could spare a thought for the young - saddled with a national debt they didn't create or vote for, renting possibly for life and with no final salary pensions so will have no asset in old age to fund a retirement and facing a future with probably no social care, a limited NHS and a state pension age rising ever out of their reach - assuming they get one at all. Many of them (30%) in a recent poll said they thought they would never retire for these reasons - they expect literally to die on the job!
Sorry cos all this has a cost - and I am not sure why we should have a blanket assistance to people who may have expensive housing assets they could choose to finance their retirement. Cos its hard to expect future generations to fund things they will never get - a retirement below 70 - if they can ever retire at all!
Help the needy - not the 'entitled'.
Sounds a risky dream ticket - as both now are in marginal seats with Boris's becoming more marginal at every election. I expect he wishes he had got a safe seat in Essex now rather than one in west London whose demographic is changing rapidly..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPuOiIZ3w1E
https://youtu.be/S-rwqGiDHSw
Why save, if it gets you little benefit?
Not bollox - you can downsize or use equity release. If you want to leave an inheritance for your 65 year old kids fine - but its not the job of the state to fund that wish. Why should the state provide pension credit, free council tax and free dental and glasses care to people who own £3m houses as can happen now - as every other asset bar your house (which can be turned into cash) is taken into account in the means test.
Its not unreasonable for the asset rich to use those assets first - and the state help those with no assets. And assets must now include housing over a certain threshold - cos houses can be turned into cash too! Sell your house - buy a flat more suitable for an elderly person - don't expect the state to give you benefits to maximise your 65 year old kids inheritance when you pass on. We aren't talking about frail people in their 80s - but often very fit and healthy people in their early 60s.
Sorry houses are wealth - and young renters shouldn't be expected to subsidise the asset rich when that asset wealth was generated by massive rises in house prices while they just sat on their sofa.
I know we seem as a nation to care more about house prices and inheritances than providing a fair and decent social care system - as the last election showed. But maybe that has to change.
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/kgfdyeogty/SundayTimesResults_180720_for_web.pdf
Boris could be PM. Seems at least possible to me.
He wouldn't last 5 mins in the job. Tories know this. there are enough sensible Tories to block him... at least I hope there are.....
Labour could win a small majority and the Tories and Boris still hold Uxbridge
http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/labour
As for care - far more people get home care than ever need residential care.
Can you also explain to me why someone in their 80s on a state pension who rents a council flat but inherits £50k from a friend has to pay for their entire home care costs up front (as they have a small pot in cash above the savings threshold) but someone who owns a £3 million house but only £22k in savings also on a state pension gets it for free.
That is our current system - someone who is 60 times wealthier gets free home care but the poorer person has to pay just because of how those assets are made up. I don't know what sort of 'fair' system you think that is - but its frankly evil! Neither has to be personally impacted - the 65 year old kids inheriting would via a lower inheritance.
He wouldn't last 5 mins in the job. Tories know this. there are enough sensible Tories to block him... at least I hope there are.....
My wife and l would veto him in our member votes
https://general-election-2010.co.uk/conservative-party-manifesto-2010-general-election/
The trading agreement and eventual deal will be negotiated in the transition period anyway, if the government won the confidence vote it is that they would oppose when and if it was eventually agreed
'The scenario you pose is almost negligible, anyone who owns a £3 million house will almost certainly have hundreds of thousands of pounds of savings they will have to put towards personal care costs and if they need residential care all their £3 million house value will be liable to care costs. Someone who rents a council flat is also unlikely to be receiving a £50k inheritance tax windfall from a friend and if they need residential care their property will of course not be liable for their care costs at all as they do not own it.'
Most people who own £3m homes will probably have hundreds of thousands in savings? Really - talk about a bubble? Those homes could have been inherited or bought for literally thousands in the 1950s and 1960s - they didn't pay £3m for them personally?
You didn't always need to be an oligarch or investment banker to buy a nice house in Richmond or Surbiton - it used to be something ordinary people on pretty average salaries did. Let alone parts of Hackney - where prices have spiralled but in the 1980s no one much wanted to live there. And they have got very lucky thanks to crazy house price inflation way in excess of wage growth.
The fact that it is possible anyway - means it shouldn't happen. Should millionaires get pension credit and pay no council tax - cos they are millionaires!
How many of these women getting their state pension are living in rented flats with no money? They should perhaps get help - but sadly this is a consequence of equality as men and women get treated equally for state pension purposes. Many men who worked doing tough jobs in industry or down mines might not live until they are 65 - but they aren't the middle class entitled.
NEW THREAD