So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
1 - gosh "less evolved members of the white working class" is a phrase for Labour supporters to contend with 2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative 3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
"Do you think money is the determinate? My friends who are pretty wealthy now are still working class I’d say, just with money. When DelBoy sold the watch he was still working class. If Prince Andrew is disowned and starts to work at minimum wage, he still won’t be.
The kids will be middle class I'd say, they all seem to go to private schools. The kids of working class who've done well.
For me, once you are paying to send your kids to private school (as opposed to them being there on some kind of bursary) you are probably no longer working class, though there will of course be exceptions. I'd say that was one of the key indicators. It does not mean that your attitudes have changed, but on a socio-economic level your circumstances are very different. But, as I say, in the end it is a very personal call. If people can self-identify as women or as black, they can surely be working class if they say they are!
If someone educated at Eton who went to Oxbridge fell on hard times and worked behind the ramp at McDonalds to survive, would they be working class? I think if you went to a comp, lived on a council estate then got rich in your adulthood, you're still working class
The England football team are working class I'd say
Yep, that is all fair enough. But it makes Emily Thornberry working class!"
SO is right. It`s not about money. I think it`s more about taste. David Beckham was - and still is - working class. I don`t think an individual can change class, but do believe that a child`s class may be different from his/her parents`.
We talk too much about class IMO.
"similarly as said of Wayne Rooney, you can take the boy out of the Estate, but not the Estate out of the boy".
But if you are a good liberal like I try to be, you are neither snobbish towards others nor doff your cap at others.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
1 - gosh "less evolved members of the white working class" is a phrase for Labour supporters to contend with 2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative 3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
(I voted Labour, BTW, if that helps put my comments in perspective - that's not coming from a Tory perspective)
We talk too much about class... Agreed. Or perhaps we don’t think enough about how the way we identify controls our actions and beliefs ?
This is an interesting article which unpacks the issues in a US context. A similar exercise done for UK politics might be instructive. https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/ The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence.... ... to give a concrete example that actually goes a little beyond what the book does, my more recent research points to how some racial and religious identities are still cross-cutting, particularly within the Democratic Party. As you suggested, African American voters are largely Christian, a religious identity associated with the Republican Party. And so that asymmetry between the parties, and that potential for cross-cutting, really interests me right now. The Democratic Party, as sort of an umbrella, currently incorporates almost all of the non-white identities, including all of the non-white evangelical identities. The Republican Party basically can be understood as the party of white Christian rural people, and the Democratic Party contains everyone else. So if you pick two random Republicans out of the entire population of Republicans, they most likely share racial and religious identities. If you pick two random Democrats out of the entire population of Democrats, they have much lower chances of sharing those identities.
I think the Democratic Party right now is about 56% white, for example. That helps to make the Democratic Party much more heterogeneous than the Republicans, which also has all of those other consequences I mentioned earlier in terms of well-aligned identities. Democrats have to cope with cross-cutting identities percolating under the party umbrella, as a basic political condition. You can’t say that every Democrat necessarily votes on behalf of their particular racial group or religious group. Participants in this relatively diverse coalition have to make compromises, and to understand each other as compatriots, even when they differ in a variety of social ways.
Republicans often don’t face this same constraint....
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Kinabalu, you are either taking the piss, are drunk or have taken leave of your senses.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Compared to other countries, England is totally class-riddled, and it is almost entirely about upbringing. Eg, graduates of two universities running the country, and basing their self-identity mainly on that experience, would be seen as perverse concentration of power, and a symptom of mental arrested development. Think about it: in this sense, even Scotland has more socially-acceptable universities than England. Edit tl;dr: class is not mainly about money. It is mainly about power. Beckhams have no more power than me. Top people slumming it can always call their chums. Remember that Jarvis song!
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
1 is clearly a send up of Emily Thornberry, Lady Nugee.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
I think it is. "BBC’s flagpole correspondent" gives it away.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
I think it is. "BBC’s flagpole correspondent" gives it away.
Pope’s law in action.
I was worried that “flagpole” was an autocorrect for “flagship”.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
1 is clearly a send up of Emily Thornberry, Lady Nugee.
On Election Night Richard Burgon claimed that the fact that they had taken Putney showed that their manifesto policies were popular.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
1 is clearly a send up of Emily Thornberry, Lady Nugee.
On Election Night Richard Burgon claimed that the fact that they had taken Putney showed that their manifesto policies were popular.
Richard Burgon also claims he's intelligent. He may have fooled Cambridge University, but...
Compared to other countries, England is totally class-riddled, and it is almost entirely about upbringing. Eg, graduates of two universities running the country, and basing their self-identity mainly on that experience, would be seen as perverse concentration of power, and a symptom of mental arrested development. Think about it: in this sense, even Scotland has more socially-acceptable universities than England. Edit tl;dr: class is not mainly about money. It is mainly about power. Beckhams have no more power than me. Top people slumming it can always call their chums. Remember that Jarvis song!
This year I've been reading a lot of biographies, including Boris, Cameron, Gove, Jacob Rees-Mogg and even Stuart Wheeler. One recurring theme is doors being opened, paths eased. In one case, literally Lloyd George knew his father. (OK so a descendant of the former prime minister.) Of course, these people had to walk through those doors but even so, life is not a meritocracy.
my amazing network level ad blocker makes this unclickable.
Was unobtainable, now is. I'm proud to announce that I'm middle class, although towards the lower end. I think it's my further degree (from Anglia Ruskin) which swung it.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
1 is clearly a send up of Emily Thornberry, Lady Nugee.
On Election Night Richard Burgon claimed that the fact that they had taken Putney showed that their manifesto policies were popular.
Richard Burgon also claims he's intelligent. He may have fooled Cambridge University, but...
One can be clever without being intelligent. And vice versa.
But you're not leaving your past behind. You're moving on from it and not allowing it to define you. That last bit was the biggest struggle for me and still is in some ways - I always feel I am being judged in meetings with people who were clearly educated privately because of my accent and less than impeccable mixing skills! I suspect you are proud of where you have come from, as am I, and as we should be.
Yes, I think that's closer to it. When I first went into finance it was an odd sort of feeling. Being in tech before that there was a very wide range of backgrounds and cultures, most people were there because they had very high level C++ skills or great artists etc... it was very much a meritocracy. Moving into banking I saw the other side of it, especially at Barclays, suddenly I was surrounded by people who went to the Harrow and Winchester, then to Oxford but who were also plainly morons that knew how to look and act like they knew what they were doing (I expect Cyclefree comes across these people quite often).
In the end I got over it and became much more comfortable talking about my own background. I think going to a grammar school really helped me though in a way other kids from my estate didn't get. We had after school speaking classes and they basically taught us all etiquette, how to dine and such, I think they knew we were never really going to be in a situation to do that at home.
Dear Supporter, ... We have changed politics for good in many ways since launching under 9 months ago. We are now assessing thoughts and ideas as to what our next steps might be. This does not need to be rushed, tempting though it is.
Yours
I`ve just received the same email - jointly from Farage and Tice.
Dear Supporter, ... We have changed politics for good in many ways since launching under 9 months ago. We are now assessing thoughts and ideas as to what our next steps might be. This does not need to be rushed, tempting though it is.
Yours
I`ve just received the same email - jointly from Farage and Tice.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Please tell me this is a spoof.
1 is clearly a send up of Emily Thornberry, Lady Nugee.
On Election Night Richard Burgon claimed that the fact that they had taken Putney showed that their manifesto policies were popular.
Richard Burgon also claims he's intelligent. He may have fooled Cambridge University, but...
Did Diane Abbot not fool them as well? What’s that old saying about fool me once...
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
I remember years ago reading a book by a psychiatrist called "The Morbid Self" by Dr. Ann Daly. In it she said it was one thing to be proud of your background and refer to it occasionally but people who were always going on about it i.e. how they were from the North/Wales/working class or whatever background, in her opinion had a personality vacuum and felt they weren't interesting enough so they had to create a persona for themselves.
Do people really spend a lot of time obsessing about what class they are? I don't. Does that make me unusual?
I remember years ago reading a book by a psychiatrist called "The Morbid Self" by Dr. Ann Daly. In it she said it was one thing to be proud of your background and refer to it occasionally but people who were always going on about it i.e. how they were from the North/Wales/working class or whatever background, in her opinion had a personality vacuum and felt they weren't interesting enough so they had to create a persona for themselves.
Do people really spend a lot of time obsessing about what class they are? I don't. Does that make me unusual?
It’s about people being uncomfortable in their own skin (or being deeply tedious). I do find it interesting though that in the US politicians talk constantly about the middle class whereas here we seem to be engaged in a prolier than thou competition. As if there is a particular virtue in a certain background. People are individuals though an a certain background makes one no more likely to be the epitome of virtue than to be a raging ****.
I remember years ago reading a book by a psychiatrist called "The Morbid Self" by Dr. Ann Daly. In it she said it was one thing to be proud of your background and refer to it occasionally but people who were always going on about it i.e. how they were from the North/Wales/working class or whatever background, in her opinion had a personality vacuum and felt they weren't interesting enough so they had to create a persona for themselves.
Do people really spend a lot of time obsessing about what class they are? I don't. Does that make me unusual?
1 - gosh "less evolved members of the white working class" is a phrase for Labour supporters to contend with 2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative 3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
(I voted Labour, BTW, if that helps put my comments in perspective - that's not coming from a Tory perspective)
Interesting comments - all the more so coming from a Labour voter.
1. Well, yes, that phrase is not one for the campaign trail. But to be serious for a second, I'm not sure we should be chasing these voters too hard. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put together a different coalition.
2. You may be right. But it made my night when it aired - it was tears in the eye and lump in throat stuff - so for that alone it has to be included.
3. I am pretty sure that the pivot to Ref2 saved the party from a loss so catastrophic as to be an existential threat to their position as the main non-Tory political force. It would have been a gift to the Lib Dems to have gone into the GE as a Leave party.
I remember years ago reading a book by a psychiatrist called "The Morbid Self" by Dr. Ann Daly. In it she said it was one thing to be proud of your background and refer to it occasionally but people who were always going on about it i.e. how they were from the North/Wales/working class or whatever background, in her opinion had a personality vacuum and felt they weren't interesting enough so they had to create a persona for themselves.
Do people really spend a lot of time obsessing about what class they are? I don't. Does that make me unusual?
I don't think it's so much English people being obsessed by it, as it being a much more complex issue than in some other countries.
My impression from the USA is that it's pretty much all about money. Either you have lots of it, or you don't, or you fall somewhere in the middle. (The US definition of middle class is very different to our own).
Here, it's some mix of money, connections, birth, education, and tastes.
It probably goes back to Gregory King, the first social scientist, who numbered and graded the English population in the late seventeenth century. He divided the upper strata of society into three categories.
The Great: people with titles (including baronetcies); their immediate relatives, bishops, and first tier gentry.
The Rich: Very successful merchants, leading professionals, and second tier gentry.
The Middling Sort: Well to do merchants, officers in the armed forces, most professionals, most clergy, prosperous farmers.
A bankrupt nobleman would still rank among The Great, because he would be welcome in places where one of the Rich would not be. The Great could afford to flout social conventions, which would be social ruin for one of the merely Rich.
1 - gosh "less evolved members of the white working class" is a phrase for Labour supporters to contend with 2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative 3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
(I voted Labour, BTW, if that helps put my comments in perspective - that's not coming from a Tory perspective)
Interesting comments - all the more so coming from a Labour voter.
1. Well, yes, that phrase is not one for the campaign trail. But to be serious for a second, I'm not sure we should be chasing these voters too hard. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put together a different coalition.
2. You may be right. But it made my night when it aired - it was tears in the eye and lump in throat stuff - so for that alone it has to be included.
3. I am pretty sure that the pivot to Ref2 saved the party from a loss so catastrophic as to be an existential threat to their position as the main non-Tory political force. It would have been a gift to the Lib Dems to have gone into the GE as a Leave party.
Losing well heeled voters in London, in return for gaining working class voters in the Red Wall seats, was a good trade off for the Conservatives.
1 - gosh "less evolved members of the white working class" is a phrase for Labour supporters to contend with 2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative 3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
(I voted Labour, BTW, if that helps put my comments in perspective - that's not coming from a Tory perspective)
Interesting comments - all the more so coming from a Labour voter.
1. Well, yes, that phrase is not one for the campaign trail. But to be serious for a second, I'm not sure we should be chasing these voters too hard. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put together a different coalition.
2. You may be right. But it made my night when it aired - it was tears in the eye and lump in throat stuff - so for that alone it has to be included.
3. I am pretty sure that the pivot to Ref2 saved the party from a loss so catastrophic as to be an existential threat to their position as the main non-Tory political force. It would have been a gift to the Lib Dems to have gone into the GE as a Leave party.
Losing well heeled voters in London, in return for gaining working class voters in the Red Wall seats, was a good trade off for the Conservatives.
When the Conservatives gained about 1.5 per cent in GB, while Labour lost about 8.5 per cent, it didn't really matter where the gains and losses were, as long as it wasn't in real heartland areas like Merseyside or Essex.
Taking my name in vain! Not sure about clever but uninformed. Thinks that's OK. See 'Grays Elegy in a Country Churchyard'; a poem which I think has some important points. Clever but wise, I agree.
In the neighbouring constituency to mine there was a suggestion about voting wisely, but not cleverly. Didn't work though, sadly!
I had Starmer as a big loser, RLB slightly better and Rayner, Thornberry, and a few non runners as big winners, but I closed them all out for a loss on the news that Rayner isn't running.
Non betting glasses on, they have to pick a woman. There is no charismatic man on their books, and Starmer is too stiff to beat Boris. Jess Phillips would be best I reckon, faux working class cabaret act notwithstanding
I think you are underestimating him. He has had to have operated like he has because of the shadow of team Milne/Corbyn. If he becomes his own man he'll be a totally different proposition.
I've still got Chuka at a 2.5k winner, any inside on whether he's going to switch again again again?
The only proper working class candidate of them all.
Hmmm
"Umunna's mother, Patricia Milmo, a solicitor, is of English-Irish background. Umunna's maternal grandparents were Joan Frances (Morley) and Sir Helenus Milmo QC, a High Court judge."
Chuka has NEVER struck me as 'working class". I don't know why Phillips is 'faux working class". Her father was a teacher and her mother a senior NHS manager who became a chair (not a CEO) of an NHS Trust; middle class Brummie, went to a secondary school which demands high academic standard entry. Not 'horny handed toilers', but no silver spoons either.
I still struggle to see why so many people who are born into working class families struggle with admitting they have become middle class. All that's happened is that you have a different kind of job and your income has changed. It's nothing to do with attitudes or lifestyle.
Do you think money m wage, he still won’t be.
Occupation and background are also important, I guess. But in the end, it seems to be self-defining and a lot of people struggle to admit they are no longer what they were. I wonder how your mates' kids - if and when they have them - will see themselves. That seems to be the Jess Phillips issue.
I agree. For some it's just another type of tribalism and they cannot accept they are no longer x, or their parents were but they are not, because its about identity, how they see themselves, than anything fundamental.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Mr. kle4, there's an awful lot wrong with identity politics, but one of the worst is that it's inherently about dividing people and judging them based on immutable characteristics rather than what they say, think, and do.
I had Starmer as a big loser, RLB slightly better and Rayner, Thornberry, and a few non runners as big winners, but I closed them all out for a loss on the news that Rayner isn't running.
Non betting glasses on, they have to pick a woman. There is no charismatic man on their books, and Starmer is too stiff to beat Boris. Jess Phillips would be best I reckon, faux working class cabaret act notwithstanding
I think you are underestimating him. He has had to have operated like he has because of the shadow of team Milne/Corbyn. If he becomes his own man he'll be a totally different proposition.
I've still got Chuka at a 2.5k winner, any inside on whether he's going to switch again again again?
The only proper working class candidate of them all.
Hmmm
"Umunna's mother, Patricia Milmo, a solicitor, is of English-Irish background. Umunna's maternal grandparents were Joan Frances (Morley) and Sir Helenus Milmo QC, a High Court judge."
Chuka has NEVER struck me as 'working class". I don't know why Phillips is 'faux
I still struggle to see why so many people who are born into working class families struggle with admitting they have become middle class. All that's happened is that you have a different kind of job and your income has changed. It's nothing to do with attitudes or lifestyle.
Do you think money m wage, he still won’t be.
Occupation and background are also important, I guess. But in the end, it seems to be self-defining and a lot of people struggle to admit they are no longer what they were. I wonder how your mates' kids - if and when they have them - will see themselves. That seems to be the Jess Phillips issue.
I agree. For some it's just another type of tribalism and they cannot accept they are no longer x, or their parents were but they are not, because its about identity, how they see themselves, than anything fundamental.
One of my son's married a Thai lady. They have three daughters who, apart from skin colour look neither 'normal' Thai nor 'typical' European and as the eldest enters her teenage years identity problems are developing.
OK, happy to retire that phrase. It does sound unpleasant.
What I mean is those voters for whom "We stood alone in 1940, we can do it again" resonates above and beyond the prosaic nitty gritty of tax & spend priorities.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
My mum`s in a home. £895 per week. Mostly paid for by the council, though NHS contribute some for health needs component. At first glance, then, mum pays nothing - but this is not entirely true because she has to pay across her pension and benefit income to the council. This amounts to a contribution of over £600 pm.
She has no savings to speak of and they can`t touch property because there is a spouse in the house (my dad).
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
After the Tories experience in the 2017 GE I doubt very much any political party will be willing to address this issue directly in the future.
At best there may be a cross party agreement about a way forward so that everyone gets blood on their hands.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
It does. And all parties talk about needing consensus. But we appear light years from that. Troubling times.
So, this being the last day of a tumultuous year in British politics, I thought it would be good to list my top 3 moments. I’ve tried to be as objective as possible and to select the 3 things which, for me, best sum up what the year just gone has been all about. In reverse order –
3. Corbyn’s Brexit Pivot
I’ve chosen this because of its enormous political impact. By recognizing the need to offer a second Referendum Jeremy Corbyn at a stroke confounded the critics who had relentlessly smeared him with the tag of “secret No Deal Brexiteer”. It showed strong leadership to adopt this policy against what was probably his personal instincts and it paid off big time at the polls. Yes, the election produced a Tory majority of 80 but it would have been well into 3 digits without this brave move by the Labour leader.
2. The Neil Monologue
This was one of those “I remember where I was when …” events, such was its visceral impact on virtually the entire nation. It only lasted 7 minutes but to its target – Boris Johnson – it must have seemed like 7 hours. Before it, Johnson was the amiable clown seeking to entertain first and govern a distant second. After it, he was the great charlatan dodging scrutiny in a cynical pursuit of power for nothing but his own self glorification. Impact on the election? Hard to say, but surely cost the Tories several seats. Who knows what their majority would have been without this remarkable intervention by the BBC’s flagpole correspondent.
1. Labour Gain Putney
Stiff competition (see above) but this has to be THE highlight of the political year. On a night when Labour were losing seats all across the North and the Midlands, the less evolved members of the White Working Class swallowing “Boris” and “Brexit” hook line & sinker, here in one of the most affluent and civilized parts of the capital city the once narrow and sectarian party of the “workers” showed itself to be now the 'broad church' champion of progressive values and took the seat. Even more strikingly, it was the only seat they did gain. Very special.
Just superb, surely the post of the last day of the year. We all build our hopes up on things that are clearly going to make many others feel the way we do only to find...nothing. To be able to laugh at these disappointments and find humour in them shows an excellent disposition.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
After the Tories experience in the 2017 GE I doubt very much any political party will be willing to address this issue directly in the future.
At best there may be a cross party agreement about a way forward so that everyone gets blood on their hands.
Yeah, it's a shame Labour made the whole issue toxic with their slogans, despite the fact something needed/needs to be done about it.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
When I was growing up, there was a hospital near our road that looked after old people https://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/stgeorgehornchurch.html, we used to take them flowers with the school. For years it was empty, and now it's been sold as a housing development
Cant help thinking with an ageing population, this kind of NHS building could have been used for looking after them rather than it being left to private firms at the rates you quote
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
There are benefits which you can claim which will go a little way to offsetting. The websites I used to use when I was involved don't seem to be active, but Citizens Advice should be able to help with current ones. If you've paid out and want to claim back, try Hugh James solicitors of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil, who have a lot of expertise in the field.
Just superb, surely the post of the last day of the year. We all build our hopes up on things that are clearly going to make many others feel the way we do only to find...nothing. To be able to laugh at these disappointments and find humour in them shows an excellent disposition.
Thank you!
And you guessed right - I wrote it to cheer myself up.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
It does. And all parties talk about needing consensus. But we appear light years from that. Troubling times.
Having observed my mum`s situation for a couple of years, I do not think that her provision should be as expensive as it is . She is in a private home (as the council don`t run them in her geography). New investment in state provision may be cheaper, I suspect. But, this aside, who pays?
Children neither want to look after their elderly parents like they used to (I don`t blame them) nor want to incur a bill for getting someone else to look after them. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
I don`t have the answers - I just recognise the difficulty that this situation represents.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
Just superb, surely the post of the last day of the year. We all build our hopes up on things that are clearly going to make many others feel the way we do only to find...nothing. To be able to laugh at these disappointments and find humour in them shows an excellent disposition.
Thank you!
And you guessed right - I wrote it to cheer myself up.
I concede, reluctantly, that you have gone back up in my estimation Kinabalu.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
I fear this issue will only be addressed properly and for the longer term if a cross party consensus can be found. Otherwise it's too easy for whatever party is on the outside to sink it with an "XXX Tax" torpedo. Happened to Burnham. Happened to May.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
I fear this issue will only be addressed properly and for the longer term if a cross party consensus can be found. Otherwise it's too easy for whatever party is on the outside to sink it with an "XXX Tax" torpedo. Happened to Burnham. Happened to May.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
It does. And all parties talk about needing consensus. But we appear light years from that. Troubling times.
Having observed my mum`s situation for a couple of years, I do not think that her provision should be as expensive as it is . She is in a private home (as the council don`t run them in her geography). New investment in state provision may be cheaper, I suspect. But, this aside, who pays?
Children neither want to look after their elderly parents like they used to (I don`t blame them) nor want to incur a bill for getting someone else to look after them. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
I don`t have the answers - I just recognise the difficulty that this situation represents.
I had to deal with issues around this a lot at one time. As you say, complicated and the more one gets involved, the more complicated it gets. No-one 'in power' seems to want too get to grips with it, so there are all sorts short-term, interim bodgeswhich suit some and not others.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
I fear this issue will only be addressed properly and for the longer term if a cross party consensus can be found. Otherwise it's too easy for whatever party is on the outside to sink it with an "XXX Tax" torpedo. Happened to Burnham. Happened to May.
And working with Boris even on this issue would be toxic for any labour leader, so even if he genuinely tries, which is far from certain, nothing will happen.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
It does. And all parties talk about needing consensus. But we appear light years from that. Troubling times.
Having observed my mum`s situation for a couple of years, I do not think that her provision should be as expensive as it is . She is in a private home (as the council don`t run them in her geography). New investment in state provision may be cheaper, I suspect. But, this aside, who pays?
Children neither want to look after their elderly parents like they used to (I don`t blame them) nor want to incur a bill for getting someone else to look after them. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
I don`t have the answers - I just recognise the difficulty that this situation represents.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
When I was growing up, there was a hospital near our road that looked after old people https://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/stgeorgehornchurch.html, we used to take them flowers with the school. For years it was empty, and now it's been sold as a housing development
Cant help thinking with an ageing population, this kind of NHS building could have been used for looking after them rather than it being left to private firms at the rates you quote
Yes, I have come to agree that care provision shoud be state-provided because the private sector seeks to exploit in this area. But this doesn`t mean that individuals shouldn`t contribute to the cost. And, as I`ve said on another post, the all-too common scenario is that there is plenty of wealth but it is all locked up in the family home (often with spouse still living there).
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
I fear this issue will only be addressed properly and for the longer term if a cross party consensus can be found. Otherwise it's too easy for whatever party is on the outside to sink it with an "XXX Tax" torpedo. Happened to Burnham. Happened to May.
It needs political courage which is in short supply but we have already had the Royal Commission and every other device to put off the evil day or contrive a consensus.
My guess (and its only a guess) is that every £1 spent on social care is worth £2 spent on the NHS. We are never going to solve waiting times without creating better through puts that allow people to leave hospital rapidly with the correct package of social care. The Tories took the first step of bringing the 2 together. Can they be brave enough to divert enough of the new money for the NHS in that direction? This would not be enough as Joff's example shows but it would be a step in the right direction.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
I fear this issue will only be addressed properly and for the longer term if a cross party consensus can be found. Otherwise it's too easy for whatever party is on the outside to sink it with an "XXX Tax" torpedo. Happened to Burnham. Happened to May.
And working with Boris even on this issue would be toxic for any labour leader, so even if he genuinely tries, which is far from certain, nothing will happen.
But something has to happen. Boris's cross party committee needs to report by the autumn and he needs to implement its recommendations, whether labour agree or not
Furthermore, by autumn labour are likely to have fractured into two parties
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
When I was growing up, there was a hospital near our road that looked after old people https://ezitis.myzen.co.uk/stgeorgehornchurch.html, we used to take them flowers with the school. For years it was empty, and now it's been sold as a housing development
Cant help thinking with an ageing population, this kind of NHS building could have been used for looking after them rather than it being left to private firms at the rates you quote
Yes, I have come to agree that care provision shoud be state-provided because the private sector seeks to exploit in this area. But this doesn`t mean that individuals shouldn`t contribute to the cost. And, as I`ve said on another post, the all-too common scenario is that there is plenty of wealth but it is all locked up in the family home (often with spouse still living there).
It nearly destroyed a relations marriage, looking after a demented parent-in-law, who became convinced that the carer was preventing them seeing their son, who was of course, out at work. On the other hand, staff to patient ratio's in homes have to be high, and on a 24 hour basis.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
I agree that is the nub of the problem. I just don't see where society gets the money from to pick up the tab otherwise.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Something my wife and I have thought about. At our ages (around 80) we have to. We downsized a few years ago, so the emotional ties to any set of bricks and mortar for any of us are long gone, which may well be a blessing. We've had some moderately expensive holidays but are now beginning the think that owe ought not to spend quite so much on such things so that, were one of us to have to go into a Home, there would be something available. One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
We will need to go back to May's proposals, hopefully well away from an election. Huge sums are needed and being able to pass on the family home or that nice bequest is simply not the priority when society is being asked to meet these costs.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
I agree that is the nub of the problem. I just don't see where society gets the money from to pick up the tab otherwise.
My sister's care over 2 years in a nursing home with terminal cervical cancer cost the Welsh NHS over £85,000 which they paid under CHC. Had she had dementia they would have taken all but £23,000
The point is dementia care is an illness and the NHS are getting away with not declaring it as such. As soon as the NHS accepts it is an illness they would have to pay and find the money
The discriminaton between the two illnesses is just wrong and sooner or later someone is going to challenge it in the courts if it is not addressed
"What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Something my wife and I have thought about. At our ages (around 80) we have to. We downsized a few years ago, so the emotional ties to any set of bricks and mortar for any of us are long gone, which may well be a blessing. We've had some moderately expensive holidays but are now beginning the think that owe ought not to spend quite so much on such things so that, were one of us to have to go into a Home, there would be something available. One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat".
A sheltered flat yes - but this doesn`t address the potential issue of either of you needing to go into care. It also exposes your family home to CGT complications and income tax on the rental income and increased building insurance costs.
My guess (and its only a guess) is that every £1 spent on social care is worth £2 spent on the NHS. We are never going to solve waiting times without creating better through puts that allow people to leave hospital rapidly with the correct package of social care. The Tories took the first step of bringing the 2 together. Can they be brave enough to divert enough of the new money for the NHS in that direction? This would not be enough as Joff's example shows but it would be a step in the right direction.
Yes, spending more on social care should lead to spending (relatively) less on mainstream care.
OTOH, spending more on mainstream care does not lead to spending (relatively) less on social care. Probably the opposite because it prolongs life spans.
Moral? Prioritize social care above the rest of the NHS. But hard to see this happening. It's not sexy.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
s.
What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
I agree that is the nub of the problem. I just don't see where society gets the money from to pick up the tab otherwise.
My sister's care over 2 years in a nursing home with terminal cervical cancer cost the Welsh NHS over £85,000 which they paid under CHC. Had she had dementia they would have taken all but £23,000
The point is dementia care is an illness and the NHS are getting away with not declaring it as such. As soon as the NHS accepts it is an illness they would have to pay and find the money
The discriminaton between the two illnesses is just wrong and sooner or later someone is going to challenge it in the courts if it is not addressed
People have challenged charging for dementia care and won, but's it's quite a fight. For some reason each case has to be fought individually.
"What about when the only asset is the family home?
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Something my wife and I have thought about. At our ages (around 80) we have to. We downsized a few years ago, so the emotional ties to any set of bricks and mortar for any of us are long gone, which may well be a blessing. We've had some moderately expensive holidays but are now beginning the think that owe ought not to spend quite so much on such things so that, were one of us to have to go into a Home, there would be something available. One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat".
A sheltered flat yes - but this doesn`t address the potential issue of either of you needing to go into care. It also exposes your family home to CGT complications and income tax on the rental income and increased building insurance costs. --------------------------------------------------------- Not sure how the tax system works with the place I know about; don't fancy living there so haven't really looked into it. Gather, though, that they will provide care services if necessary.
Comments
2 - I think this had zero impact; not a single mind was changed, and "Boris" was already priced in, positive and negative
3 - interesting.perspective. I think it probably did them a lot of harm in all the seats they lost. And whether that was enough to shore up those they held is debatable.
We talk too much about class IMO.
"similarly as said of Wayne Rooney, you can take the boy out of the Estate, but not the Estate out of the boy".
But if you are a good liberal like I try to be, you are neither snobbish towards others nor doff your cap at others.
Agreed.
Or perhaps we don’t think enough about how the way we identify controls our actions and beliefs ?
This is an interesting article which unpacks the issues in a US context. A similar exercise done for UK politics might be instructive.
https://blog.lareviewofbooks.org/interviews/rhetoric-escalates-talking-lilliana-mason/
The problem comes when you begin to identify with your party so strongly that you cannot imagine ever voting for the other party. Democracy requires accountability. If an elected official does something that we don’t like, that doesn’t serve our interest, then we should have the option and the impetus to vote against this person next time. But really strong partisanship allows bad behavior to continue in government, and allows representatives to ignore or even work against our interests with virtually no consequence....
... to give a concrete example that actually goes a little beyond what the book does, my more recent research points to how some racial and religious identities are still cross-cutting, particularly within the Democratic Party. As you suggested, African American voters are largely Christian, a religious identity associated with the Republican Party. And so that asymmetry between the parties, and that potential for cross-cutting, really interests me right now. The Democratic Party, as sort of an umbrella, currently incorporates almost all of the non-white identities, including all of the non-white evangelical identities. The Republican Party basically can be understood as the party of white Christian rural people, and the Democratic Party contains everyone else. So if you pick two random Republicans out of the entire population of Republicans, they most likely share racial and religious identities. If you pick two random Democrats out of the entire population of Democrats, they have much lower chances of sharing those identities.
I think the Democratic Party right now is about 56% white, for example. That helps to make the Democratic Party much more heterogeneous than the Republicans, which also has all of those other consequences I mentioned earlier in terms of well-aligned identities. Democrats have to cope with cross-cutting identities percolating under the party umbrella, as a basic political condition. You can’t say that every Democrat necessarily votes on behalf of their particular racial group or religious group. Participants in this relatively diverse coalition have to make compromises, and to understand each other as compatriots, even when they differ in a variety of social ways.
Republicans often don’t face this same constraint....
Edit tl;dr: class is not mainly about money. It is mainly about power. Beckhams have no more power than me. Top people slumming it can always call their chums. Remember that Jarvis song!
I was worried that “flagpole” was an autocorrect for “flagship”.
I think it's my further degree (from Anglia Ruskin) which swung it.
In the end I got over it and became much more comfortable talking about my own background. I think going to a grammar school really helped me though in a way other kids from my estate didn't get. We had after school speaking classes and they basically taught us all etiquette, how to dine and such, I think they knew we were never really going to be in a situation to do that at home.
Hope 2020 is better for you.
Do people really spend a lot of time obsessing about what class they are? I don't. Does that make me unusual?
I think most people don't care much. They do care if people bullshit about it.
1. Well, yes, that phrase is not one for the campaign trail. But to be serious for a second, I'm not sure we should be chasing these voters too hard. Perhaps there is an opportunity to put together a different coalition.
2. You may be right. But it made my night when it aired - it was tears in the eye and lump in throat stuff - so for that alone it has to be included.
3. I am pretty sure that the pivot to Ref2 saved the party from a loss so catastrophic as to be an existential threat to their position as the main non-Tory political force. It would have been a gift to the Lib Dems to have gone into the GE as a Leave party.
My impression from the USA is that it's pretty much all about money. Either you have lots of it, or you don't, or you fall somewhere in the middle. (The US definition of middle class is very different to our own).
Here, it's some mix of money, connections, birth, education, and tastes.
It probably goes back to Gregory King, the first social scientist, who numbered and graded the English population in the late seventeenth century. He divided the upper strata of society into three categories.
The Great: people with titles (including baronetcies); their immediate relatives, bishops, and first tier gentry.
The Rich: Very successful merchants, leading professionals, and second tier gentry.
The Middling Sort: Well to do merchants, officers in the armed forces, most professionals, most clergy, prosperous farmers.
A bankrupt nobleman would still rank among The Great, because he would be welcome in places where one of the Rich would not be. The Great could afford to flout social conventions, which would be social ruin for one of the merely Rich.
Can you actually be clever yet unintelligent? How so?
I would have said you can be clever yet uninformed, or clever but not wise.
How could I do that.
(Yes, agree with what you say there.)
Not sure about clever but uninformed. Thinks that's OK. See 'Grays Elegy in a Country Churchyard'; a poem which I think has some important points.
Clever but wise, I agree.
In the neighbouring constituency to mine there was a suggestion about voting wisely, but not cleverly. Didn't work though, sadly!
Guessing that now is not a good time so I'm happy to make that a resolution for 2020. Perhaps in the Spring?
What I mean is those voters for whom "We stood alone in 1940, we can do it again" resonates above and beyond the prosaic nitty gritty of tax & spend priorities.
We have some experience of this now as we have the mother-in-law living with us. She has dementia so needs some specialist care. It costs £50 and hour or £250 to have someone stay overnight. It's too early to think about a home, but we had a look just to get an idea and the price range was from £750 a week to £1,200. Per year you are looking at around £38,000 to £55,000. For one person. Upscale that to the number of elderly peope that need this now and who will require it in the future and that is a huge amount of money. It needs dealing with.
She has no savings to speak of and they can`t touch property because there is a spouse in the house (my dad).
At best there may be a cross party agreement about a way forward so that everyone gets blood on their hands.
It does mean you forego the opportunity for a higher (than 9) score but if that's OK with you then so be it. We move on.
https://www.bellway.co.uk/new-homes/thames-gateway/st-georges-park
with a healthcare hub
https://www.julialopez.co.uk/news/why-new-st-georges-health-and-well-being-hub-so-important
Cant help thinking with an ageing population, this kind of NHS building could have been used for looking after them rather than it being left to private firms at the rates you quote
And you guessed right - I wrote it to cheer myself up.
Children neither want to look after their elderly parents like they used to (I don`t blame them) nor want to incur a bill for getting someone else to look after them. Why should the taxpayer foot the bill?
I don`t have the answers - I just recognise the difficulty that this situation represents.
My guess (and its only a guess) is that every £1 spent on social care is worth £2 spent on the NHS. We are never going to solve waiting times without creating better through puts that allow people to leave hospital rapidly with the correct package of social care. The Tories took the first step of bringing the 2 together. Can they be brave enough to divert enough of the new money for the NHS in that direction? This would not be enough as Joff's example shows but it would be a step in the right direction.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Furthermore, by autumn labour are likely to have fractured into two parties
Well I'll make the most of that because when you see my new poem - "Lament For Laura" - I will probably be back in the doghouse.
One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat.
The point is dementia care is an illness and the NHS are getting away with not declaring it as such. As soon as the NHS accepts it is an illness they would have to pay and find the money
The discriminaton between the two illnesses is just wrong and sooner or later someone is going to challenge it in the courts if it is not addressed
The state gets a security over it and paid out on death for the costs incurred. And the kids have to make their own money, having opted out of caring for their parent(s).
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Something my wife and I have thought about. At our ages (around 80) we have to. We downsized a few years ago, so the emotional ties to any set of bricks and mortar for any of us are long gone, which may well be a blessing. We've had some moderately expensive holidays but are now beginning the think that owe ought not to spend quite so much on such things so that, were one of us to have to go into a Home, there would be something available.
One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat".
A sheltered flat yes - but this doesn`t address the potential issue of either of you needing to go into care. It also exposes your family home to CGT complications and income tax on the rental income and increased building insurance costs.
OTOH, spending more on mainstream care does not lead to spending (relatively) less on social care. Probably the opposite because it prolongs life spans.
Moral? Prioritize social care above the rest of the NHS. But hard to see this happening. It's not sexy.
Bad books.
That`s one point of view. I had a heart-to-heart with my parents a while back over this. I tried to relay the rules to them. I seek no inheritance and have never based my finances on the expectation of receiving one. I do feel a (slight) emotional attachment to the family home. When I explained the rules to my parents their eyes glazed with tears and explained how upset they would be to think that their property (even a part of it) would be taken by the council rather than their lifes` work and pride and joy being kept in the family.
I see your point of view and on balance probably agree with it - but for many people (most I`d say) the state should pick up the tab in these circumstances because the family home should be untouchable. This is how most people feel and is the nub of the problem, politically.
Something my wife and I have thought about. At our ages (around 80) we have to. We downsized a few years ago, so the emotional ties to any set of bricks and mortar for any of us are long gone, which may well be a blessing. We've had some moderately expensive holidays but are now beginning the think that owe ought not to spend quite so much on such things so that, were one of us to have to go into a Home, there would be something available.
One solution locally is to let the family home and use the income therefore to fund a sheltered flat".
A sheltered flat yes - but this doesn`t address the potential issue of either of you needing to go into care. It also exposes your family home to CGT complications and income tax on the rental income and increased building insurance costs.
---------------------------------------------------------
Not sure how the tax system works with the place I know about; don't fancy living there so haven't really looked into it. Gather, though, that they will provide care services if necessary.