"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.
You should consider amending your will (maybe you have already?). I am assuming you have children: change ownership to joint tenants and make beneficiary of your half of the property your child/children (via a trust) rather than your spouse on your death. Vice versa your spouse. That way, when one of you dies the surviving spouse has a right to continue to reside but only actually owns half the property - and if he/she goes onto care the council can only touch half of the value.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
"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".
It`s because success hinges on a fight with NHS over their "continuing health care" obligations which they always fight hard against.
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...
Diane was a very good political pundit on This Week. Sadly her Shadow Cabinet career so far has been less successful.
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).
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
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).
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
"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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
That is interesting. Thank you"
BigG: it all depends on getting NHS to accept that part of the care costs is actually health costs. If it is then NHS are obliged to 100% fund the health component. This is their "continuing healthcare" obligation. The NHS, however, routinely tries to avoid this commitment. This is well documented. You may want to look through back episodes of R4 MoneyBox.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
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).
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
That is interesting. Thank you
NHS Continuing Healthcare. There's a forum and a Decision Support Tool. The relevant law if the Coughlan Case and there Grogan Case.
BigG: it all depends on getting NHS to accept that part of the care costs is actually health costs. If it is then NHS are obliged to 100% fund the health component. This is their "continuing healthcare" obligation. The NHS, however, routinely tries to avoid this commitment. This is well documented. You may want to look through back episodes of R4 MoneyBox.
It is very hard to get NHS Continuing Healthcare, if you have dementia. Even if you get Continuing Healthcare, it is reviewed every 6 months by the NHS and can be taken away.
Paradoxically, it can be taken away, as your illness worsens -- because the NHS can argue that your healthcare needs are no longer primary and your needs are for social care.
Basically, you are so demented in the late stages of Parkinson's or Alzheimers that the NHS argue that no healthcare can change the outcome! You need social care for whatever very basic tasks remain to you (eating, sleeping and defecating).
Tbh, the NHS is not to blame. They have a budget (set by politicians, and ultimately voters).
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 many of the questions were unanswerable in so much as the alternatives weren't relevant to me. But is says I am working class, that must be why I have voted Tory at every election since 1978 !
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
It seems that the Tories hit a sweet spot, putting on votes where they needed to, and going nowhere where it didn't matter.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
Yes, that’s true, and it’s one reason why with a higher voteshare than Thatcher or Major they won fewer seats.
But it was still an important achievement for the Tories to actually win these seats. Close second places - as in Newcastle under Lyme last time - win no prizes.
Equally, a close second place gives something to build on. Perhaps a crumb of comfort in that for the Liberal Democrats.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
On the social care issue one way or another keeping oldies like me alive for longer is achievable but at the cost of everyone being less well off than otherwise. No two ways about it. A fair chunk of the cash will have to come from those most able to pay but it will need more than a few billionnaires ' rather an awful lot of moderately well off folk whose peak earning years and retirements will be somewhat more frugal. I´ve personally been very fortunate and the move to Spain has brought a very comfortable lifestyle while my savingscapital has kept pace with inflation for over ten years now.
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.
The problem can be summarised very simply, since 2000 the share of government spending on pensions and healthcare has gone from 30% to 45%.
That's a lot of austerity needed in other areas to compensate.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
It seems that the Tories hit a sweet spot, putting on votes where they needed to, and going nowhere where it didn't matter.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
BigG: it all depends on getting NHS to accept that part of the care costs is actually health costs. If it is then NHS are obliged to 100% fund the health component. This is their "continuing healthcare" obligation. The NHS, however, routinely tries to avoid this commitment. This is well documented. You may want to look through back episodes of R4 MoneyBox.
It is very hard to get NHS Continuing Healthcare, if you have dementia. Even if you get Continuing Healthcare, it is reviewed every 6 months by the NHS and can be taken away.
Paradoxically, it can be taken away, as your illness worsens -- because the NHS can argue that your healthcare needs are no longer primary and your needs are for social care.
Basically, you are so demented in the late stages of Parkinson's or Alzheimers that the NHS argue that no healthcare can change the outcome! You need social care for whatever very basic tasks remain to you (eating, sleeping and defecating).
Tbh, the NHS is not to blame. They have a budget (set by politicians, and ultimately voters).
This is what the voters have decided.
This is really rather depressing for New Years Eve, happy new year everyone for one night of the year I’m going to try and forget about dementia care (no joke intended)
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Who would ever have believed the Tories would win 62% in Stoke South?
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
It seems that the Tories hit a sweet spot, putting on votes where they needed to, and going nowhere where it didn't matter.
To an extent! When that middle number is bigger, first guess should be that it is a "good-campaign" story. But they got many more votes in places where they were already strong and it didn't matter, than places where they were weak and it didn't matter. I would say this means the trade-off or re-alignment story is not what happened. They got both the Labour Leave voters AND the shires remain voters.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
It seems that the Tories hit a sweet spot, putting on votes where they needed to, and going nowhere where it didn't matter.
Which was exactly what you and I forecast before the election.
The Conservatives didn't do very well in Remainia, but either the seats were already Labour/LibDem or the LibDems were so far behind it didn't matter. But they did very well in Leaverstan, where they had already closed the gap on Labour.
It was a perfect storm for the Conservative Party, as far as efficiency of vote went.
I think it is unlikely that it will be possible to repeat the trick so well in future.
I see that and raise you the bedroom tax which was, of course, not a tax, but a reduction in benefits.
OK. But I now kick the table over by pointing out that for Labour "tax" is not a swear word. Therefore a smear from the Tories using this lexicon is ... no forget it this doesn't work. It almost does but it doesn't quite. We must refresh and revert.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Yes, But, didn't, the Tory's Lose the next election in 1869?
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Yes, But, didn't, the Tory's Lose the next election in 1869?
Probably, but it got the Tories out of a cycle of losing almost all of the time that they had endured since 1831. That was Cameron's achievement in 2010, up to then it was assumed the Tories could never even share power again.
Disraeli brought about the Tory dominance which, on and off endured until 1997.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
Interesting, thanks for that.
Some of that may be that's where the conservatives targeted, with Facebook Adds, direct mail, and/or on the ground GOTV operation. don't suppose you have the equivalent fingers in absolute total votes instead of vote %? The 0.2% increase in sub 35% areas may also be conservative incline people tactically voting BREXIT party in the hope that would work in their seat?
1. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that all of my political instincts developed over decades remained sound and that the Conservatives were going to win a solid majority. Everything told me that was the case - except the real fears over a repeat of a 2017 random weird-shit outcome.
2. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that the Brexit vote would be honoured. In exactly what form we wait to see in 2020. But at least the Establishment forces of Revoke had got a bloody nose.
3. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that Labour had got the drubbing that its anti-semite enablers entirely deserved. Hopefully they can wade through the cloying mud back towards the centre ground - and an opposition I wouldn't want, but equally wouldn't despair about and be at the airport waving goodbye to my Jewish friends. Early signs from Labour's leadership contenders aren't entirely encouraging though.
And with that, it's off for a long soaky bath, then a dinner party with people who don't share all my political views, but who will at least remain civil to me. I wish Boris a fair wind in 2020 to achieve a decent Brexit outcome for us all. I hope the tidal lagoons get revisited. Personally, I hope next year I get to first day of principal photography on my script, in Hawaii, surrounded by a cast full of babes (and the Good Lady Wifi, of course...) Thanks to all for kind thoughts regarding the loss of my mother. And I hope this place stays THE place on the net to talk and to bicker and to flounce and to educate and to pun. Happy New Year all!
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Yes, But, didn't, the Tory's Lose the next election in 1869?
They lost in 1868, and won in 1874, building on a swing to them in the counties and new suburbs already discernible in 1868.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Yes, But, didn't, the Tory's Lose the next election in 1869?
Probably, but it got the Tories out of a cycle of losing almost all of the time that they had endured since 1831. That was Cameron's achievement in 2010, up to then it was assumed the Tories could never even share power again.
Disraeli brought about the Tory dominance which, on and off endured until 1997.
1846, not 1831. THey had been unable to command a majority since the Corn Law Repeal Split. Prior to that they had substantially increased their number of seats in 1835 and won outright in 1841.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
And that, rather than the appalling choice of leadership candidates is the biggest threat to Labour for 2024. Assuming there isn't a complete balls-up - never guaranteed, then,
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
Who would ever have believed the Tories would win 62% in Stoke South?
And that belief is so important. Assuming most of the elected new MPs are reasonable MPs who can stand a round in a pub and talk about things normal people talk about using just the right number of swear words, then they are 80% there towards re-election.
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).
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
That is interesting. Thank you
NHS Continuing Healthcare. There's a forum and a Decision Support Tool. The relevant law if the Coughlan Case and there Grogan Case.
The NHS has become vey proficient indeed in gaming the DST over the years. It’s a bit like wrestling in treacle with someone who is also the referee...
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.
The problem can be summarised very simply, since 2000 the share of government spending on pensions and healthcare has gone from 30% to 45%.
That's a lot of austerity needed in other areas to compensate.
And, it is worth remembering, even if the number of pensioners remained constant, then pensions costs will grow faster than tax receipts because of the triple lock. But it's worse than that, because we're heading towards the biggest bulge in the population pyramid: the number of pensioners is going to grow significantly in the next decade, as the number of people of working age falls.
Healthcare (and care for those with dementia and the like) is getting more expensive too. Whether it is drugs, or simply the fact that 80 year olds have an order of magnitude more health care expenses than 30 year olds.
And all this is happening while we're at the tail end of an economic expansion, having spent all our foreign savings, and with government debt-to-GDP at twice the level it was before the last recession.
The money has to come from somewhere. It can either come from the savings of old people, or from the current incomes of the young.
Neither of which is obviously politically popular.
We have some experience of this now as we have the motherith.
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).
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.
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.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both. I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
That is interesting. Thank you
NHS Continuing Healthcare. There's a forum and a Decision Support Tool. The relevant law if the Coughlan Case and there Grogan Case.
The NHS has become vey proficient indeed in gaming the DST over the years. It’s a bit like wrestling in treacle with someone who is also the referee...
It’s very hard on NHS managers. They are in trouble, budget-wise, if they lose such cases, but as human beings they know they could be in the same position. And of course as you say there’s always the chance that a manager will not only have dealt with several cases but the claimant only deals with one. There is, or used to be, a very helpful website run by a guy called Steve Squires, but it seems to be defunct.
One humongous piece of evidence against stories of 2019 as a realigning-election. The Conservative vote went up a lot more in their 2017 strong constituencies. For 2017 vote share between 50-70% (i.e. safe), the vote went up 1.7%. For 2017 vote share between 35-50% (i.e. contestable and winnable), the vote went up 2.5%. Below 35%, they put on only 0.2%. That's all independent of region. So the Conservatives gained in areas where they were already contenders. At most, 2019 was the completion of a realignment that was much stronger in 2017.
Interesting, thanks for that.
Some of that may be that's where the conservatives targeted, with Facebook Adds, direct mail, and/or on the ground GOTV operation. don't suppose you have the equivalent fingers in absolute total votes instead of vote %? The 0.2% increase in sub 35% areas may also be conservative incline people tactically voting BREXIT party in the hope that would work in their seat?
Not sure if it signifies anything, but in strong-safe seats, they put on an average 769 and other parties lost an average total of 762. In contestable seats, they put on 995 and others lost 1,253. In weak seats, they lost 219 and others lost 396. For what it's worth, most of this is a turnout story. Weak seat electorates grew a little faster, but the total vote was just way down.
BigRich raises the Brexit Party part of the story about Conservative votes in weak versus strong areas. To sum up, The Brexit Party did not determine the overall pattern. Brexit stood in about half the seats where Conservatives were between 35% and 50%. In those winnable seats, Conservatives gained an average 2.6% where there was no Brexit candidate, but 2.0% where there was a Brexit candidate.
Now noting that The Brexit Party won an average 4.21% in the latter seats, that suggests not much overlap between the two. That corresponds even with big Brexit Party seats like the Barnsleys or Hartlepool where the Conservatives lost way fewer votes than Labour. But note that "Conservative incumbency" is hugely correlated with "no Brexit candidate".
Comments
"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.
You should consider amending your will (maybe you have already?). I am assuming you have children: change ownership to joint tenants and make beneficiary of your half of the property your child/children (via a trust) rather than your spouse on your death. Vice versa your spouse. That way, when one of you dies the surviving spouse has a right to continue to reside but only actually owns half the property - and if he/she goes onto care the council can only touch half of the value.
"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".
It`s because success hinges on a fight with NHS over their "continuing health care" obligations which they always fight hard against.
I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
I wasn't aware of that. Time for a class action maybe
Back last century (!) F-i-l developed dementia. M-i-l looked after him until she had a massive disabling stroke. Meant both needed constant care. We fought for it for both of them, got something for both.
I quoted a solicitors in another post; Hugh James of Cardiff and Merthyr Tydfil who have developed considerable expertise in the field.
That is interesting. Thank you"
BigG: it all depends on getting NHS to accept that part of the care costs is actually health costs. If it is then NHS are obliged to 100% fund the health component. This is their "continuing healthcare" obligation. The NHS, however, routinely tries to avoid this commitment. This is well documented. You may want to look through back episodes of R4 MoneyBox.
Paradoxically, it can be taken away, as your illness worsens -- because the NHS can argue that your healthcare needs are no longer primary and your needs are for social care.
Basically, you are so demented in the late stages of Parkinson's or Alzheimers that the NHS argue that no healthcare can change the outcome! You need social care for whatever very basic tasks remain to you (eating, sleeping and defecating).
Tbh, the NHS is not to blame. They have a budget (set by politicians, and ultimately voters).
This is what the voters have decided.
But it was still an important achievement for the Tories to actually win these seats. Close second places - as in Newcastle under Lyme last time - win no prizes.
Equally, a close second place gives something to build on. Perhaps a crumb of comfort in that for the Liberal Democrats.
That's a lot of austerity needed in other areas to compensate.
In the Bishop Auckland / Workington seats they do as was done in Stoke post 2017. Look this Tory is a pretty decent MP, got me a chairlift, stopped my dad being killed by the NHS - just your usual Farron bullshit. This must be a real threat in the Hartlepools and seats which didn't quite make it. While Labour are discussing the collectivised rightness of the true faith Tory MPs as individuals could be doing things people actually want. Tory Candidates can be promising to do the same.
Can't remember the actual quote but there was something about the 2nd Reform Act, 1867. The Liberals were bathing in their own virtue and along came Disraeli and stole their clothes. It is amusing that the chatteratti haven't cottoned on yet as to why Boris is so fond of Benjamin.
The Conservatives didn't do very well in Remainia, but either the seats were already Labour/LibDem or the LibDems were so far behind it didn't matter. But they did very well in Leaverstan, where they had already closed the gap on Labour.
It was a perfect storm for the Conservative Party, as far as efficiency of vote went.
I think it is unlikely that it will be possible to repeat the trick so well in future.
Disraeli brought about the Tory dominance which, on and off endured until 1997.
Some of that may be that's where the conservatives targeted, with Facebook Adds, direct mail, and/or on the ground GOTV operation. don't suppose you have the equivalent fingers in absolute total votes instead of vote %? The 0.2% increase in sub 35% areas may also be conservative incline people tactically voting BREXIT party in the hope that would work in their seat?
1. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that all of my political instincts developed over decades remained sound and that the Conservatives were going to win a solid majority. Everything told me that was the case - except the real fears over a repeat of a 2017 random weird-shit outcome.
2. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that the Brexit vote would be honoured. In exactly what form we wait to see in 2020. But at least the Establishment forces of Revoke had got a bloody nose.
3. 10.01 pm, 12th December - confirmation that Labour had got the drubbing that its anti-semite enablers entirely deserved. Hopefully they can wade through the cloying mud back towards the centre ground - and an opposition I wouldn't want, but equally wouldn't despair about and be at the airport waving goodbye to my Jewish friends. Early signs from Labour's leadership contenders aren't entirely encouraging though.
And with that, it's off for a long soaky bath, then a dinner party with people who don't share all my political views, but who will at least remain civil to me. I wish Boris a fair wind in 2020 to achieve a decent Brexit outcome for us all. I hope the tidal lagoons get revisited. Personally, I hope next year I get to first day of principal photography on my script, in Hawaii, surrounded by a cast full of babes (and the Good Lady Wifi, of course...) Thanks to all for kind thoughts regarding the loss of my mother. And I hope this place stays THE place on the net to talk and to bicker and to flounce and to educate and to pun. Happy New Year all!
Healthcare (and care for those with dementia and the like) is getting more expensive too. Whether it is drugs, or simply the fact that 80 year olds have an order of magnitude more health care expenses than 30 year olds.
And all this is happening while we're at the tail end of an economic expansion, having spent all our foreign savings, and with government debt-to-GDP at twice the level it was before the last recession.
The money has to come from somewhere. It can either come from the savings of old people, or from the current incomes of the young.
Neither of which is obviously politically popular.
NEW THREAD
Now noting that The Brexit Party won an average 4.21% in the latter seats, that suggests not much overlap between the two. That corresponds even with big Brexit Party seats like the Barnsleys or Hartlepool where the Conservatives lost way fewer votes than Labour. But note that "Conservative incumbency" is hugely correlated with "no Brexit candidate".