Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
1. Cap of £86k 2. Floor of £100k 3. 1.25% hike NI 4. Raises £36bn 5. BUT vast majority goes to NHS. Only £5.4bn for care. 6. Of that £5.4bn, £2.5bn funds care cap. Leaves £2.9bn over 3 years for reform. Care leaders furious.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
1. Cap of £86k 2. Floor of £100k 3. 1.25% hike NI 4. Raises £36bn 5. BUT vast majority goes to NHS. Only £5.4bn for care. 6. Of that £5.4bn, £2.5bn funds care cap. Leaves £2.9bn over 3 years for reform. Care leaders furious.
Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
You must be happy though with a Brownian tax rise to raise money for the NHS.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
This is just wrong. A social cap was recommended by the Dilnot Report as a key plank - indeed *the* key plank of social care reform, and with good reason.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't...
It raises the interesting question of what would be the attitude towards psychedelics, some of which might well escape the proscriptions regarding intoxication or societal harm.
Tory members & Red Wall voters have competing preferences over fiscal policy. Reflected in priorities of @BorisJohnson vs @RishiSunak Still, it's amazing how mismanaged the process over social care has been Wait for debate over: levelling up, net-zero, new manifesto commitments
Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
I would love it if one of the Cabinet, perhaps Truss could do it, were to resign over this.
Would be a potential future Leader who has stood up for low taxes and honouring the manifesto "guarantee".
No manifesto guarantee is an actual guarantee, I think it is a mistake to harp on about the mere fact of breaking the manifesto pledge - since no one believes it is always wrong to go against such pledges if circumstances change it just looks obstructive and a way of avoiding more difficult questions about criticising specific proposals by taking an out.
The question is whether a manifesto breach is, in principle, justified, and I think given the dire situation of Social Care the answer to that is Yes for most people.
So the follow up is whether this specific way of breaching the manifesto is justified, to which many people might more reasonably say No. The smart MPs will be saying this is not the right way to address the issue because it is ineffective on top of being a manifesto breach. The dumb and cowardly MPs will just say 'we must keep our word/I stood on this proposal'.
So Cabinet Ministers resigning over it have a slightly tougher bar to reach when justifying it, since to be taken seriously they will need to say why this proposal doesn't work, and implicitly it would be a good idea for them to detail their alternative, just as will be demanded of the opposition.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
If I round my tax take to the nearest whole number and send only 1% to HMRC instead of 1.2% then will HMRC say "oh that's primary school maths, we're fine with that"?
There is no need to round it. 1.2% is the figure, no rounding necessary, and it is higher than 1%
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
Ta
BBC news channel in last 5 minutes
Cheers.
As I posted last night, the 7.5% rate is absurd.
Not really, there used to be no tax at all becuse the divi is already net of corporation tax, so to tax it in the recipient's hands is taxing it twice.
Successive governments have really buggered up the corporation tax and dividends link. Brown started it, Osbourne promised to correct it and made it worse. Hammond continued. Looks like it will continue.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote.
As a Tory I would be more concerned by the rumoured freeze in the Triple Lock on our vote than a less than 1.5% rise in NI
Whatever the merits of this policy, announcing the plan today and voting on it tomorrow isn't on, is it?
NEW: Understand there will be a vote in the Commons tomorrow on the NI rise. PM clearly keen to push thru quickly and avoid a space for growing and vocal opposition to his plan to build
(It's the Euro Trade Deal vote playbook, natch. Except that there was a plausible, if self created, urgency there. This clearly doesn't need to be voted on tomorrow.)
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
This is just wrong. A social cap was recommended by the Dilnot Report as a key plank - indeed *the* key plank of social care reform, and with good reason.
Its all basically Dilnot isnt it, higher threshold to start paying, cap on lifetime liability to pay, hope a private sector insurance market emerges because the cap creates certainty on the worst case and only some of the rest get anywhere near that amount - so premium costs v £80k of care costs would be low. Presumably only difference from the Labour proposal then was where the tax take comes from?
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
You've gone in the space of a week from "no tax rises" to "no more than 1%" to "no more than 1.5%"
You're such a partisan hack and have no principles. You'll just back whatever the line to take today is.
If Boris came out in favour of a new Independence Referendum you'd be shouting how good an idea it is to now have a referendum but that there must be no more after that.
Reshuffle latest: Whitehall officials increasingly think Boris Johnson *is* planning to shake up his Cabinet on Thursday. "I'm more confident today," one well placed mandarin says. But some still think it could all be a ruse to keep MPs and ministers in line on social care. https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1435203729955991557
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
On reflection though, was the lack of 'native' alcohol why they and the other Native (North) Americans got hammered so quickly? And fleeced by the Europeans.
The prevalence of gene variants which facilitate alcohol metabolism (which can make a tenfold or more difference in its rapidity) varies widely between populations, so there's almost certainly some evolutionary element to that.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
If I round my tax take to the nearest whole number and send only 1% to HMRC instead of 1.2% then will HMRC say "oh that's primary school maths, we're fine with that"?
There is no need to round it. 1.2% is the figure, no rounding necessary, and it is higher than 1%
I fancy giving that a go, sounds like a cracking idea. Maybe HYUFD could write a paper in support that we could send with our tax returns.
On the subject of the day - fair play to the government for trying to do something about social care, something that’s been in the too-difficult pile for a long time. But NI is just about the worst possible tax to increase for it.
Being bold, would be taking the opportunity of merging NI into income tax.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
This is just wrong. A social cap was recommended by the Dilnot Report as a key plank - indeed *the* key plank of social care reform, and with good reason.
If you are capping costs to allow the children of elderly parents in Surrey to keep their inheritance it's possible to attack the NI tax rise.
If the only thing announced is an NI rise to pay for NHS and social care - there is little that can be attacked.
Now personally the fix is a wealth tax targeting property (for anything else is difficult to attack) but I can see why it doesn't get very far.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
The BQ did not exist then.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
You've gone in the space of a week from "no tax rises" to "no more than 1%" to "no more than 1.5%"
You're such a partisan hack and have no principles. You'll just back whatever the line to take today is.
If Boris came out in favour of a new Independence Referendum you'd be shouting how good an idea it is to now have a referendum but that there must be no more after that.
No I wouldn't, I will always oppose an indyref2 until a generation after 2014.
I have always made clear I support NI as the best route to fund social care and the NHS alongside voluntary private insurance for care, so no change in my position. The less than 1.5% rise in NI is fine with me
Mr. Romford, it's a wretched strategy from a cowardly PM.
And, once more, money is there to be shovelled into the insatiable maw of the NHS instead of social care, which is meant to be the whole point of the tax rises.
This feels a lot like a government wanting to pass off a tax hike in a way the public will accept than a government with an actual plan on social care.
Feels like it's more about the deficit than about anything else.
1. Cap of £86k 2. Floor of £100k 3. 1.25% hike NI 4. Raises £36bn 5. BUT vast majority goes to NHS. Only £5.4bn for care. 6. Of that £5.4bn, £2.5bn funds care cap. Leaves £2.9bn over 3 years for reform. Care leaders furious.
Apparently the cabinet approved the detail this morning
12.30 - Boris in HOC
4.00pm - Boris, Rishi and Sajid press conference
And a vote in tomorrow to compel people to vote via loyalty rather than debating the issues or giving a rebellion a chance to build.
Cynical, but smart politics.
It is all politics in the end
A note for you from Zahawi's interview this morning... Was in not "childish" (your choice of epithet) of him to call the government's plans a "truly historic and ambitious reform", if he refused to say what they were ?
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
The BQ did not exist then.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
They were more swing seats as the same Quebec seats which vote for Mulroney also voted for Pierre Trudeau and are voting for Justin Trudeau now having been BQ in the 1990s and 2000s and NDP in 2011.
I expect Trudeau to fail to get a majority but still win most seats but with a small swing to the Tories since 2019 and O'Toole winning the popular vote
Whatever the merits of this policy, announcing the plan today and voting on it tomorrow isn't on, is it?
NEW: Understand there will be a vote in the Commons tomorrow on the NI rise. PM clearly keen to push thru quickly and avoid a space for growing and vocal opposition to his plan to build
(It's the Euro Trade Deal vote playbook, natch. Except that there was a plausible, if self created, urgency there. This clearly doesn't need to be voted on tomorrow.)
They know a debate on this policy is a massive vote loser. It's completely cynical and hopefully the speaker will force a much longer dated vote.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
You've gone in the space of a week from "no tax rises" to "no more than 1%" to "no more than 1.5%"
You're such a partisan hack and have no principles. You'll just back whatever the line to take today is.
If Boris came out in favour of a new Independence Referendum you'd be shouting how good an idea it is to now have a referendum but that there must be no more after that.
No I wouldn't, I will always oppose an indyref2 until a generation after 2014.
I have always made clear I support NI as the best route to fund social care and the NHS alongside voluntary private insurance for care, so no change in my position. The less than 1.5% rise in NI is fine with me
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
No, that would be 1.66%
I have a wall available if anyone would like to use it to bang their head against.
Whatever the merits of this policy, announcing the plan today and voting on it tomorrow isn't on, is it?
NEW: Understand there will be a vote in the Commons tomorrow on the NI rise. PM clearly keen to push thru quickly and avoid a space for growing and vocal opposition to his plan to build
(It's the Euro Trade Deal vote playbook, natch. Except that there was a plausible, if self created, urgency there. This clearly doesn't need to be voted on tomorrow.)
They know a debate on this policy is a massive vote loser. It's completely cynical and hopefully the speaker will force a much longer dated vote.
Using NI is completely cynical too - allows a headline increase of 1.25% when the reality is 1.25% for the employee directly from their pay packet and another 1.25% for business on top..
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
I thought 1% was your absolute maximum, oh, I don't know, 5 hours ago?
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
No, that would be 1.66%
1 is 66% of 1.5.
Your figure would be correct only if we were talking about 3 and 5, or 1 and 5/3.
As an aside, I'd be very happy if the government were openly addressing the deficit, which has been ignored ever since May's idiotic approach to shunning a key Conservative strength.
Apparently the cabinet approved the detail this morning
12.30 - Boris in HOC
4.00pm - Boris, Rishi and Sajid press conference
And a vote in tomorrow to compel people to vote via loyalty rather than debating the issues or giving a rebellion a chance to build.
Cynical, but smart politics.
It is all politics in the end
A note for you from Zahawi's interview this morning... Was in not "childish" (your choice of epithet) of him to call the government's plans a "truly historic and ambitious reform", if he refused to say what they were ?
No as it was seeking details before the announcement
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
The BQ did not exist then.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
Neither did Reform. The rise of Reform, as an openly Western Party, which later united with the PC, has made the Tories less attractive out East. O'Toole is running as PC, not Reform. Which is why they are making some inroads.
Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
I would love it if one of the Cabinet, perhaps Truss could do it, were to resign over this.
Would be a potential future Leader who has stood up for low taxes and honouring the manifesto "guarantee".
No manifesto guarantee is an actual guarantee, I think it is a mistake to harp on about the mere fact of breaking the manifesto pledge - since no one believes it is always wrong to go against such pledges if circumstances change it just looks obstructive and a way of avoiding more difficult questions about criticising specific proposals by taking an out.
The question is whether a manifesto breach is, in principle, justified, and I think given the dire situation of Social Care the answer to that is Yes for most people.
So the follow up is whether this specific way of breaching the manifesto is justified, to which many people might more reasonably say No. The smart MPs will be saying this is not the right way to address the issue because it is ineffective on top of being a manifesto breach. The dumb and cowardly MPs will just say 'we must keep our word/I stood on this proposal'....
Of course it's not. They promised fundamentally to sort out social care ("I have a plan" etc) at the same time as they promised not to raise NI. From what's emerged so far, they're going to break both those promises.
Whatever the merits of this policy, announcing the plan today and voting on it tomorrow isn't on, is it?
NEW: Understand there will be a vote in the Commons tomorrow on the NI rise. PM clearly keen to push thru quickly and avoid a space for growing and vocal opposition to his plan to build
(It's the Euro Trade Deal vote playbook, natch. Except that there was a plausible, if self created, urgency there. This clearly doesn't need to be voted on tomorrow.)
They know a debate on this policy is a massive vote loser. It's completely cynical and hopefully the speaker will force a much longer dated vote.
Using NI is completely cynical too - allows a headline increase of 1.25% when the reality is 1.25% for the employee directly from their pay packet and another 1.25% for business on top..
Yup and the workers most likely to be hit by the employer NI rise are lower paid unskilled ones who already struggle to get reasonable pay rises.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
Fair enough. It might be an idea, longer term, for the Tories to stop giving the impression they don't like Quebec, feckless Quebeckers draining the productive parts of the country, nor the French language. Not real Canadians in essence. The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
Indeed and under Brian Mulroney in 1984 and 1988 the Progressive Conservatives even won most seats in Quebec
The BQ did not exist then.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
Neither did Reform. The rise of Reform, as an openly Western Party, which later united with the PC, has made the Tories less attractive out East. O'Toole is running as PC, not Reform. Which is why they are making some inroads.
Yet still not enough and a long way from Mulroney when the Tories won most seats in Quebec, O'Toole's Quebec vote is up a bit but the Tories are still 3rd there behind he Liberals and BQ
The people actually needing the care won't pay for it.
So the next time I am told to pay my way and pay back my student loan, I am going to say no, somebody else's problem
They paid in for NI all their working lives, if they need residential care they already have to sell their homes to pay for it
When are you going to get it into your thick skull. NI is a tax like any other. It isn't hypothecated to anything, the "NI fund" is a myth and you're a complete idiot if you think this new tax will ever remain at this level or hypothecated.
Ah ha. Clearer now. This is not using a tax rise to fix social care, it's using Covid as cover for a tax rise for the NHS, and pretending that the funds raised will also fix social care, thus getting Johnson off the hook of his promise on that score. Smoke and mirrors. There is no Social Care Plan, not really, it's going to have to wait a bit longer, probably until there's a Labour PM.
It's not even a tax rise for the NHS. It's a general tax increase associated by the government with the NHS because the NHS sounds like a good thing to raise taxes for.
* edit rather than eg a barely functioning Test and Trace system that cost billions and billions or the dodgy PPE, also billions, supplied by cronies of the government.
Over my adult life the national insurance rate has more than doubled from 5.75% to 12% and is set to go higher today. Over the same period the basic rate of income tax has fallen from 34% to 20%. That tells you a lot about the politics of taxation.
Quite... tax is the emotive word. However NI is getting higher every now and then and it won't be long before they are at parity. Them people will be talking about a 40pc basic rax rate. Much better to do away with the exempt rate slowly over 10 to 20 yrs yrs...rather than increase the N I rate.
As things stand I will vote for him in 2024 unless Labour steps up with proper alternatives.
Wow. You serious?
Quite the political journey you’ve been on!
It is a profound moment for Johnson. He has done the right thing in bringing, finally, Dilnot after a decade of dither. He has overriden all the endless wingeing and moaning and dither and delay and can kicking and done something.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
It is basic primary school maths that 1.2% rounded up to the nearest whole number would be 1%, it would need to be 1.5% or more to be 2%
For once be sensible
Social care and the NHS costs of Covid need to be funded somehow and a less than 1.5% rise in NI is a better alternative in my view than the alternatives of an increase in income tax or inheritance tax or a wealth tax or a dementia tax.
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote
You've gone in the space of a week from "no tax rises" to "no more than 1%" to "no more than 1.5%"
You're such a partisan hack and have no principles. You'll just back whatever the line to take today is.
If Boris came out in favour of a new Independence Referendum you'd be shouting how good an idea it is to now have a referendum but that there must be no more after that.
No I wouldn't, I will always oppose an indyref2 until a generation after 2014.
I have always made clear I support NI as the best route to fund social care and the NHS...
I don't recall your objecting to the promise not to raise it at the time. Am I misremembering ?
Health and Social Care Levy will be stripped off from NICs from 2023 when HMRC have built the systems to take it from pay separately. What will that 1.25pc levy be by 2025? By 2030? Opens a door to a very easy tax to put up - or offer to - every election for all parties forever.
This is why I am always wary of any new taxes...like wealth tax, it will start with soak the rich, then it won't raise as much as it is suppose to, then well we need to take a bit from the upper middle class, and before you know it we are all paying a tax on our wealth.
Its also why UBI, in theory seems an interesting idea, provided the level is set exactly right, but the temptation will always to fiddle with it in interests of partisan politics. Such and such a group need an extra special bonus UBI payment, such and such a group don't need all of it...
Comments
Too. F*****g. Hot.
Would be a potential future Leader who has stood up for low taxes and honouring the manifesto "guarantee".
Not real Canadians in essence.
The Province is older, more rural, and more socially conservative than most of Canada after all. And has just under 25% of the seats.
You might consider it a Conservative proposal.
And 1.2% is ALREADY 'rounded' to one decimal place. It can't get any closer.
I am not.
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/5/3/912/htm
It raises the interesting question of what would be the attitude towards psychedelics, some of which might well escape the proscriptions regarding intoxication or societal harm.
Still, it's amazing how mismanaged the process over social care has been
Wait for debate over: levelling up, net-zero, new manifesto commitments
https://twitter.com/Mij_Europe/status/1435202323953893377?s=20
The question is whether a manifesto breach is, in principle, justified, and I think given the dire situation of Social Care the answer to that is Yes for most people.
So the follow up is whether this specific way of breaching the manifesto is justified, to which many people might more reasonably say No. The smart MPs will be saying this is not the right way to address the issue because it is ineffective on top of being a manifesto breach. The dumb and cowardly MPs will just say 'we must keep our word/I stood on this proposal'.
So Cabinet Ministers resigning over it have a slightly tougher bar to reach when justifying it, since to be taken seriously they will need to say why this proposal doesn't work, and implicitly it would be a good idea for them to detail their alternative, just as will be demanded of the opposition.
There is no need to round it. 1.2% is the figure, no rounding necessary, and it is higher than 1%
If you want income tax to rise or a wealth tax then vote Labour if you want a shift in tax from income to wealth vote LD, obviously as Tories we will not do it or hit our core vote.
As a Tory I would be more concerned by the rumoured freeze in the Triple Lock on our vote than a less than 1.5% rise in NI
NEW: Understand there will be a vote in the Commons tomorrow on the NI rise. PM clearly keen to push thru quickly and avoid a space for growing and vocal opposition to his plan to build
https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1435191907274133509?s=20
(It's the Euro Trade Deal vote playbook, natch. Except that there was a plausible, if self created, urgency there. This clearly doesn't need to be voted on tomorrow.)
I'd think this was funny if not for your timeout showing you don't do this sort of thing as a joke. Everyone makes inconsequential errors.
You're such a partisan hack and have no principles. You'll just back whatever the line to take today is.
If Boris came out in favour of a new Independence Referendum you'd be shouting how good an idea it is to now have a referendum but that there must be no more after that.
https://twitter.com/SebastianEPayne/status/1435203729955991557
That is a good 2/3 of your nice new absolute maximum.
Being bold, would be taking the opportunity of merging NI into income tax.
Some.
Bit more detail on £100k floor:
Not quite a floor as costs will be tapered between £20k-100k so individual still contributes but state helps.
But main reaction from care sector is about overall funding here - falls way short of what they feel they need and seems more about NHS.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1435204029815087106
If the only thing announced is an NI rise to pay for NHS and social care - there is little that can be attacked.
Now personally the fix is a wealth tax targeting property (for anything else is difficult to attack) but I can see why it doesn't get very far.
The BQ took Tory seats in conservative, rural, Francophone Quebec. This makes it more difficult for the Canadian Tories to win a majority.
In essence, it is the converse of what happened here, where the SNP took primarily Labour seats, making it more difficult for Labour to win a majority.
But, surely, Justin is in trouble as there appears no sensible reason why anyone should hold an unnecessary election in the middle of a feckin pandemic.
I have always made clear I support NI as the best route to fund social care and the NHS alongside voluntary private insurance for care, so no change in my position. The less than 1.5% rise in NI is fine with me
And, once more, money is there to be shovelled into the insatiable maw of the NHS instead of social care, which is meant to be the whole point of the tax rises.
Feels like it's more about the deficit than about anything else.
https://twitter.com/jamesrbuk/status/1435205616428101632?s=20
2.5% increase in tax.
Bye Boris and Sunak. Lost my support.
As an aside the Green Party introduced a NHS hypothecated tax policy in its manifesto about fifteen years ago.
Was in not "childish" (your choice of epithet) of him to call the government's plans a "truly historic and ambitious reform", if he refused to say what they were ?
I expect Trudeau to fail to get a majority but still win most seats but with a small swing to the Tories since 2019 and O'Toole winning the popular vote
I’m expecting ministerial resignations before the vote tomorrow.
As things stand I will vote for him in 2024 unless Labour steps up with proper alternatives.
Your figure would be correct only if we were talking about 3 and 5, or 1 and 5/3.
Quite the political journey you’ve been on!
Well done Boris
So the next time I am told to pay my way and pay back my student loan, I am going to say no, somebody else's problem
Has my full support on this policy.
O'Toole is running as PC, not Reform. Which is why they are making some inroads.
Finally. Dilnot.
The space-time continuum is broken
From what's emerged so far, they're going to break both those promises.
No signs of that old Long Covid this morning.
* edit rather than eg a barely functioning Test and Trace system that cost billions and billions or the dodgy PPE, also billions, supplied by cronies of the government.
Though, if is fair to say you are benefiting from an inheritance that enables you to purchase a property in London and I am genuinely pleased for you
Erhhh, that's not how it works...
Fewer old people will need at home care only than the number of students going to university now
Action this day.
Am I misremembering ?
Is it because they vote Tory? Hmmmmm
https://twitter.com/MrHarryCole/status/1435209091664781312?s=20
This is why I am always wary of any new taxes...like wealth tax, it will start with soak the rich, then it won't raise as much as it is suppose to, then well we need to take a bit from the upper middle class, and before you know it we are all paying a tax on our wealth.
Its also why UBI, in theory seems an interesting idea, provided the level is set exactly right, but the temptation will always to fiddle with it in interests of partisan politics. Such and such a group need an extra special bonus UBI payment, such and such a group don't need all of it...
Is that a bug or a feasture?
What's his alternative.
We know under Corbyn it would be a wealth tax. What is it under the useless nonentity in charge now.
So now you are moving the goalposts to 1.5% before you raise the 'Down with this sort of thing' placard.