On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would add that it's only a business arrangement for the landlord. For the people in need of housing, perhaps including homeless people, morality certainly does come into it. The supply of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, cannot be totally separated from ethical considerations.
Yes, although the contract between the council and the landlord is business.
They are attempting to get better terms by making their partners feel guilty.
That’s not the way a government should behave towards its citizens
It's pretty normal for governments of all levels and of most stripes to exhort its citizenry to think about the ethics of their choices. Ask not what your council can do for you, but what you can do for your council! I can't speak for others, but the times when I become annoyed at ethical demands are usually the times when, on reflection, I was not paying enough attention to them. Others' experiences may differ.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
I largely agree with what you're saying, but I would add that it's only a business arrangement for the landlord. For the people in need of housing, perhaps including homeless people, morality certainly does come into it. The supply of any of the essentials of life, including shelter, cannot be totally separated from ethical considerations.
Yes, although the contract between the council and the landlord is business.
They are attempting to get better terms by making their partners feel guilty.
That’s not the way a government should behave towards its citizens
They can play on sympathy, that's the stick, but they need to consider if the carrot makes up for that as well. The example mentions a deal, so if they've made any deal attractive enough then I'd be less concerned about a bit of emotional blackmail.
Yes although the fact they go with emotional blackmail implies the business terms aren’t great….
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
This is something Mrs C and I discuss on occasion, since we're both over 80. The over-riding problem that we see with home care is isolation. The idea of living alone and someone arriving at 6.30 or so and putting us to bed, even if we can manage the TV remote is extremely unattractive. My mother, unsafe on her own at 90 after my father died (and he wasn't much help) decided that she wanted to into a home near where my sister lived, but not with my sister, and I can fully understand her reasoning. She slowly got herself from her room into the lounge where she could talk to fellow residents, and where the staff went to and fro.
I might feel differently closer to the time but I agree. If I can't look after myself, and a good care home was available I would prefer that to home care. Of course it is different if only bad care homes are available. It needs proper funding and good wages, not the smoke and mirrors sticking plaster we have been offered as the fix for the next decade.
See my comment at 10.08. The trouble is that the money available to Care Home Managers is frequently inadequate. One of the best Homes I've came across was run by a charity; the Motor Trades Benevolent; there was wide range of activities and plenty of support. It was also in a very big building.... I think the one-time mansion of an early motor magnate, which meant that there was room for several levels of care, as the residents level of need increased.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
But don’t all those things reduce your life expectancy thus reducing your risk of getting dementia?
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
OK, it's just that an unknown local council (who may be Labour) is being maligned for allegedly sending an email to a private landlord asking if he could consider council tenants rather than private tenants. There is no actual evidence that those words were used (or implied by the letter). Maybe they were "imprinted " on the letter by Darkage? Until we see the letter it's difficult to tell. A lot of supposition to slag off a local council that may be Labour. Perhaps Darkage has had an issue with his local council in the past? I am merely surmising in the absence of any real evidence.
Possibly although I had missed the fact that it was a labour council. @darkage did include the comment in quotes though
The interesting difference is between us. I assume that a fellow poster is telling the truth until proven otherwise. You assume he is lying.
On the contrary, I am of the opinion that you have to be very careful what you say in certain situations. In fun discussions some poetic license is obviously allowed and we can be tongue-in-cheek, but in others, certain amounts of evidence is required to back up what you say. It's all to the good, as Darkage has admitted he misread his email anyway. It is so easy to make a mistake in writing. It happened to me once as a teacher. I sent an email to a parent which turned out to be factually incorrect and included some private info on a converstion string. I was on the carpet for it. Since then I always re-read and re-read all emails to parents and staff, and never included the previous conversation string.
In matters of one-to-one jousting I am quite happy to believe any posters in the heat of the moment. I have to admit since joining pb I ahve learned a lot about other people's views and the arguements they use.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Many Brexiters were wildly optimistic about how easy arrangements would be and goodwill that would be in place for solutions as it would be 'in everyone's interests' (I thought it would be hard, but not as hard as it still turned out to be), of course the SNP would equally be wildly optimistic. Maybe they'll get lucky, but given in each case there will be political benefit from the other side to be obstructive, and political benefit for the new state to blame everything on them, I wouldn't put money on solutions being quick.
As I've often thought, the strongest argument against Scottish Independence will be Brexit.
The SNP/Greens are effectively saying 'Brexit was a complete disaster.....lets repeat the exact same experiment'!
On another note, Over here in Sydney the vaccine race is well and truly on. Pubs and restaurants expect to re-open in mid October for double vaccinated patrons and double vaccinated staff.
I think we need to start thinking about un-vaccinated people the same way we think about smokers in pubs/restaurants. Not just personally reckless, but a health risk to everyone else, like 2nd hand/passive smoke.
Your point about SNP/Greens and Brexit is spot on. But on your last point, you have it the wrong way round. The un-vaccinated are personally reckless (except those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons), but the risk is on them from infected vaccinated people.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
Is it not the case that those who are bi-lingual have significantly less chance of getting dementia?
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care. @Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.
Difficult to navigate is an understatement. We went through this with my in-laws some twenty years ago, and I have no doubt, from what I have read, that it is more difficult now, although there are one or two solicitors about. There was a lot of 'bother' 20-25 years ago over compensation for industrial injuries to former miners and there's some case law as a result of that.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
That’s a good point. As a kid I remember watching Arkwright town near Chesterfield move from one side of the road to the other and clearly the residents got a good deal:
An interesting thing was that the slate tiles on the rooftops of the old houses was worth quite a bit of money, so they carefully removed them one by one.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care. @Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.
To be strictly accurate, if continuing health care is paid for, it’s actually the NHS which does so, but there seems to have developed an understanding between LAs and the NHS on how to manage the process to fund the least number possible.
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
I didn't see the comments, but if someone called him a moron I think that was unfair - he's entitled to be militantly loyalist, and he always expresses it in polite terms. It's probably unwise in terms of member retention, but in the great scheme of things nothing any of us write here is exactly likely to change the government. We can all draw our own conclusions about loyalists in different parties (which is basically me too, though I don't criticise people who move on).
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care. @Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.
Difficult to navigate is an understatement. We went through this with my in-laws some twenty years ago, and I have no doubt, from what I have read, that it is more difficult now, although there are one or two solicitors about. There was a lot of 'bother' 20-25 years ago over compensation for industrial injuries to former miners and there's some case law as a result of that.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
The Lib Dems would do well to manage their candidates list to ensure a suitable leader is an MP after the next election. I know just the person as it happens.
I still expect a by the fingernails majority for the Tories at the next election. But the shine will truly be off by the election after. And the Lib Dems have to be in a position to give a proper alternative if Labour still haven’t sorted themselves out but then, or at least a suitable non-Nat counterweight to a coalition/minority Labour govt.
Who do you have in mind?
Personally, I rather like Ed Davey, and he was a very good minister. I also think that the LDs need some continuity, indeed should have stuck with Tim Farron after 2017. 4 leaders in 4 years is too much, even if politics accelerated between 2016 and now, with everyone bar SNP changing leaders constantly.
Labour are going at the crap tax angle. LibDems going at the crap services angle. Davey has skin in the game - the LibDem social care act was binned by the Tories in 2015 and he personally is a carer.
As it becomes blindingly obvious that the front line NHS cuts pre-covid are so much worse and not improving, this will gain traction. Ultimately the party backed a tax increase so attacking it seems silly. Attack that it is being spent on nothing. Glad I voted for Ed.
Davey was interesting on Any Questions this week. His first years were spent about a mile from where I now live.
Getting out of touch on Green Issues though - his factoid was that UK causes 2% of global C02 emissions, whilst it is now about half that. He did some great stuff in that area an needs to catch up.
Too much oppositionalism at the moment.
Davey is a good media performer, and is rarely caught out, speaks clearly and is usually very perceptive. Not loads of charisma, and being an overweight fifty-something white man in a suit doesn't make him stand out. I like him, but he is not going to set the world alight. (Perhaps not the best metaphor in an overheating world!)
Have not seen or heard an utterance anywhere from him since he was elected, more invisible than Keir Starmer and less policies if that is humanly possible.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
I think naive, rather than out of touch.
Blair or Cameron would have stf up and let the Government keep digging.
Nonetheless social care is such a cluster**** that any discourse should be welcome. The Johnsonians on here that were not insensed by the N I hike are raving that Johnson has finally grasped the social care bull by the horns. I know I will beat up on Johnson, any opportunity I find, however when one drills down on this announcement it is hard to see past the (for good or for bad) tax rise.
Nothing about the controversial Texas abortion law? At first glance that would help Abbott.
Or not? Might it not fire up the opposition?
And good morning one and all. Take it we're done with the self-obits of last night.
Old King Cole is a merry old soul?
Sadly, not particularly at time of writing. Aches, pains and the slings and arrows etc.
But thanks for the thought.
Could I recommend the fiddlers three?
I am waiting for someone to fiddle with my arthritic ankles! All scheduled to have happened by mid Oct.(NHS)
only another couple of years to wait then OKC
Cheerful, aren't you! Actually, MRI scan in a few days, consultant booked three weeks later. It's an odd situation; the local Hospital Trust has outsourced some arthritis care to a private hospital. Means that some appointments are at rather unsocial hours; 7pm and so on, but so far there's progress.
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
I didn't see the comments, but if someone called him a moron I think that was unfair - he's entitled to be militantly loyalist, and he always expresses it in polite terms. It's probably unwise in terms of member retention, but in the great scheme of things nothing any of us write here is exactly likely to change the government. We can all draw our own conclusions about loyalists in different parties (which is basically me too, though I don't criticise people who move on).
Last night @HYUFD was particularly painful to read
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
From conversations I’ve had , it’s the loss of fields bit which seems to get people agitated, followed by the look of houses themselves.
Going from Didcot to Abingdon, there were around 7-8 different plot areas that had been earmarked for development. Quiet fields set to be built on.
You live in those areas, surrounded by greenery is a big part of the appeal. Living next to a McEstate, not so much.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
In the commuter belt people have a huge vested interest in that they have a massive and growing capital asset in their homes *and* have paid to live somewhere nice. Make the point that we need to build new houses at least until the price stops going up, and all the local nimby Tories start shitting themselves.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
Sounds like an attempt to extort money with menaces, tbh. If the Council want more housing they should be seeking powers to build it rather than trying confiscation.
My experience of local councils is that they are not very good at ‘doing the right thing.’ Certainly I would only hand over my property to the council if they bought it off me knowing what state they would leave it in.
It is not confiscation , they do a deal with you , they pay you a monthly amount for a guaranteed term and they take over the rental and uptake of the house and put it back to it's original state before returning it at end of lease. For some it is a great deal, you may get a little bit less than renting yourself but you have long term guaranteed payment , no hassles and any damages paid for restoration when you get it back.
Many have commented on the disparity in the way the NHS treats terminal cancer and terminal Parkinson's disease/Lewy bodies.
People with cancer get (most) of their treatment/care free, while people with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's (mostly) have to pay.
Was this always the case in the NHS?
Has this distinction only come about recently (when because of increasing longevity the numbers of patients with Alzheimers/Parkinsons have substantially increased), or was it always the case even in the 1960s and 1970s?
The rules are anything but clear, and as the burden of paying for the elderly has increased, councils have become expert in navigating the process to avoid paying for continuing health care. @Big_G_NorthWales is right that if you have cancer, the state pays; Alzheimer’s it doesn’t. There’s a grey area in between, which is difficult to navigate for the non expert.
To be strictly accurate, if continuing health care is paid for, it’s actually the NHS which does so, but there seems to have developed an understanding between LAs and the NHS on how to manage the process to fund the least number possible.
Yes in our case it was Wales NHS who paid all the cost
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
I didn't see the comments, but if someone called him a moron I think that was unfair - he's entitled to be militantly loyalist, and he always expresses it in polite terms. It's probably unwise in terms of member retention, but in the great scheme of things nothing any of us write here is exactly likely to change the government. We can all draw our own conclusions about loyalists in different parties (which is basically me too, though I don't criticise people who move on).
His demeaning of people who have voted for more than one party as impure is no less an insult than being called a moron. He is not polite, he just insults in a higher register, which people mistake for manners. In many ways I prefer the coarser ways of telling people what you think. It's a fair fight then between the eloquent and the not.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
But don’t all those things reduce your life expectancy thus reducing your risk of getting dementia?
Probably not by as much as you think, as we have got quite good at keeping unhealthy people alive.
My sympathy is with councils. They have been in an invidious position, ever since they had to sell of much of their housing stock following Thatcher, compounded over the last 10 years by having their budgets pared to the bone so that they can provide little more than statutory services.
Councils have lots of statutory, and non-statutory, obligations to find housing for people: vulnerable adults, the homeless, young mothers, asylum seekers/refugees (including, for example, recent arrivals from Afghanistan), etc. And that's even before tackling their huge 'normal' waiting lists. Temporary accommodation is often exorbitant, with many in need ending up in grotty B&Bs or substandard accommodation. They are desperate to find housing, so it's hardly surprising that they try to persuade landlords to strike a deal with them. Good on them.
And is Bill Clinton right when he said that abortion should be 'safe, legal and rare'?
Yes, I think he is. Ideally, no-one would conceive unless they wanted to, and no-one would have cause to change their mind.
I'd also add that abortion should be easy and quick to access. The later an abortion occurs the more difficult it becomes, and so to minimise distress we should make it as easy to access as early as possible.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
I think naive, rather than out of touch.
Blair or Cameron would have stf up and let the Government keep digging.
Nonetheless social care is such a cluster**** that any discourse should be welcome. The Johnsonians on here that were not insensed by the N I hike are raving that Johnson has finally grasped the social care bull by the horns. I know I will beat up on Johnson, any opportunity I find, however when one drills down on this announcement it is hard to see past the (for good or for bad) tax rise.
Yes, he hasn’t really grappled with social care itself. The tax rise is largely going to the NHS. There is the social care liability cap, to come in a couple of years’ time, and a bit more funding going in, but the system otherwise remains largely untouched.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Residential locally looks like being about £1k per week.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Residential locally looks like being about £1k per week.
My Dad is in residential and pays 900 a month, including a three course meal each day. That seemed to be the going rate where he is.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
If so, it really does show SKS is out of touch.
No one wants to go into a care home, no one wants to put their parent into a care home.
It is only done when home care has become impossible.
It is already an absolute last resort.
I think naive, rather than out of touch.
Blair or Cameron would have stf up and let the Government keep digging.
Nonetheless social care is such a cluster**** that any discourse should be welcome. The Johnsonians on here that were not insensed by the N I hike are raving that Johnson has finally grasped the social care bull by the horns. I know I will beat up on Johnson, any opportunity I find, however when one drills down on this announcement it is hard to see past the (for good or for bad) tax rise.
Yes, he hasn’t really grappled with social care itself. The tax rise is largely going to the NHS. There is the social care liability cap, to come in a couple of years’ time, and a bit more funding going in, but the system otherwise remains largely untouched.
In any event, did he not say, around the time of the 2019 election, that he had a plan to fix social care
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
Thanks. Thought it was worth posting, and did not want to reignite yesterday's riot on this topic.
I note that the Saccoolas' lawyer has admitted that she did do dangerous driving (went over a blind summit on the wrong side of the road), and the reason she ran away was because the maximum 'causing death by dangerous driving' penalty is claimed to be excessive at 14 years.
I think a study of actual sentences and circumstances may have saved her a lot of trouble.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Residential locally looks like being about £1k per week.
My sympathy is with councils. They have been in an invidious position, ever since they had to sell of much of their housing stock following Thatcher, compounded over the last 10 years by having their budgets pared to the bone so that they can provide little more than statutory services.
Councils have lots of statutory, and non-statutory, obligations to find housing for people: vulnerable adults, the homeless, young mothers, asylum seekers/refugees (including, for example, recent arrivals from Afghanistan), etc. And that's even before tackling their huge 'normal' waiting lists. Temporary accommodation is often exorbitant, with many in need ending up in grotty B&Bs or substandard accommodation. They are desperate to find housing, so it's hardly surprising that they try to persuade landlords to strike a deal with them. Good on them.
Then, they should offer good terms, always pay on time, insist the properties are well looked after, or kick them out, and treat the property owner as their client rather than puffing their chests out and declaring they really are.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
I agree, it is a stunning piece. It was a genuine accident. A mistake which lead to a catastrophic occurence. I do see there is a big difference in unwittingly causing someone's death, like the MP and contributing towards it such as drunken driving or mobile phone usage to name two.
I don't drive much now, but I often used to drive to work in the morning, 2 or 3 miles, and have no memory of large parts of the journey. It was so scary in retrospect.
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
I didn't see the comments, but if someone called him a moron I think that was unfair - he's entitled to be militantly loyalist, and he always expresses it in polite terms. It's probably unwise in terms of member retention, but in the great scheme of things nothing any of us write here is exactly likely to change the government. We can all draw our own conclusions about loyalists in different parties (which is basically me too, though I don't criticise people who move on).
His demeaning of people who have voted for more than one party as impure is no less an insult than being called a moron. He is not polite, he just insults in a higher register, which people mistake for manners. In many ways I prefer the coarser ways of telling people what you think. It's a fair fight then between the eloquent and the not.
I’ve some sympathy with that. There’s something essentially undemocratic about an obsession with party loyalty.
Nothing about the controversial Texas abortion law? At first glance that would help Abbott.
Or not? Might it not fire up the opposition?
And good morning one and all. Take it we're done with the self-obits of last night.
Old King Cole is a merry old soul?
Sadly, not particularly at time of writing. Aches, pains and the slings and arrows etc.
But thanks for the thought.
Could I recommend the fiddlers three?
I am waiting for someone to fiddle with my arthritic ankles! All scheduled to have happened by mid Oct.(NHS)
only another couple of years to wait then OKC
Cheerful, aren't you! Actually, MRI scan in a few days, consultant booked three weeks later. It's an odd situation; the local Hospital Trust has outsourced some arthritis care to a private hospital. Means that some appointments are at rather unsocial hours; 7pm and so on, but so far there's progress.
All you hear on the news every day about people waiting for ever , either it is reality or the media is lying. Standard here seems to be minimum 12 weeks to get appointments for anything unless you are going in on a stretcher.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Residential locally looks like being about £1k per week.
My Dad is in residential and pays 900 a month, including a three course meal each day. That seemed to be the going rate where he is.
I am not sure what you mean by residential
Private care home fees round here average £1,000 per week
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
In the commuter belt people have a huge vested interest in that they have a massive and growing capital asset in their homes *and* have paid to live somewhere nice. Make the point that we need to build new houses at least until the price stops going up, and all the local nimby Tories start shitting themselves.
But that’s not the OAPs like my parents and our neighbours. My dad says he couldn’t care what his house is worth. He’s lived in Woking his whole life. It’s his home. Now, he might not approve of the countryside being concreted over - we live on an estate so it does affect us personally - but any concerns are not driven by worries about house prices.
My friends who got big H2B loans on the other hand...
On topic, those look like pretty terrible approval ratings, is that normal? My understanding was that American voters generally approve of their governors.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet. It also feels luxurious, without most people quite being able to realise why.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
Many Brexiters were wildly optimistic about how easy arrangements would be and goodwill that would be in place for solutions as it would be 'in everyone's interests' (I thought it would be hard, but not as hard as it still turned out to be), of course the SNP would equally be wildly optimistic. Maybe they'll get lucky, but given in each case there will be political benefit from the other side to be obstructive, and political benefit for the new state to blame everything on them, I wouldn't put money on solutions being quick.
As I've often thought, the strongest argument against Scottish Independence will be Brexit.
The SNP/Greens are effectively saying 'Brexit was a complete disaster.....lets repeat the exact same experiment'!
On another note, Over here in Sydney the vaccine race is well and truly on. Pubs and restaurants expect to re-open in mid October for double vaccinated patrons and double vaccinated staff.
I think we need to start thinking about un-vaccinated people the same way we think about smokers in pubs/restaurants. Not just personally reckless, but a health risk to everyone else, like 2nd hand/passive smoke.
Many Brexiters were wildly optimistic about how easy arrangements would be and goodwill that would be in place for solutions as it would be 'in everyone's interests' (I thought it would be hard, but not as hard as it still turned out to be), of course the SNP would equally be wildly optimistic. Maybe they'll get lucky, but given in each case there will be political benefit from the other side to be obstructive, and political benefit for the new state to blame everything on them, I wouldn't put money on solutions being quick.
As I've often thought, the strongest argument against Scottish Independence will be Brexit.
The SNP/Greens are effectively saying 'Brexit was a complete disaster.....lets repeat the exact same experiment'!
On another note, Over here in Sydney the vaccine race is well and truly on. Pubs and restaurants expect to re-open in mid October for double vaccinated patrons and double vaccinated staff.
I think we need to start thinking about un-vaccinated people the same way we think about smokers in pubs/restaurants. Not just personally reckless, but a health risk to everyone else, like 2nd hand/passive smoke.
The unvaccinated are mainly a threat to themselves and their fellow unvaxxers.
I'm in the pub because I'm double vaccinated. If there are a few unvaxxers in there, I don't really care.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
No, OAP remains the same. You are also entitled to an Attendance Allowance, which has several levels. Further, as per my comments up thread about the Motor Trades Benevolent Association, are there any professional or social organisations to which you belong which might assist with support, both financial and advisory. I know mine does.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
you could have just written 'vote leave'
i played a lot of football from age 10 - 18 and i remember my parents being adamant that i should never head the ball so the heading/brain damage link must have been at least suspected for a very long time
‘Heid the baw’ has been a descriptor for a psycho mentalist in Glasgow for a long time, though tbf we have an embarrassingly rich vocabulary in that area.
My sympathy is with councils. They have been in an invidious position, ever since they had to sell of much of their housing stock following Thatcher, compounded over the last 10 years by having their budgets pared to the bone so that they can provide little more than statutory services.
Councils have lots of statutory, and non-statutory, obligations to find housing for people: vulnerable adults, the homeless, young mothers, asylum seekers/refugees (including, for example, recent arrivals from Afghanistan), etc. And that's even before tackling their huge 'normal' waiting lists. Temporary accommodation is often exorbitant, with many in need ending up in grotty B&Bs or substandard accommodation. They are desperate to find housing, so it's hardly surprising that they try to persuade landlords to strike a deal with them. Good on them.
Yes.
But it would liven up local politics quite a bit if a huge proportion of local expenditure had to be raised locally and councils were given unlimited rights of local taxation, with discretion to tax agricultural land, with central grant only to even out anomalies. Actually it would probably beat cage fighting as a spectacle.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
'Her only toilet is upstairs' was always a serious cause for concern when I attended 'elderly discharge' meetings. One of our retirement planning choices was a bungalow for that very reason.
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
Absolutely. It's the only area of life where I feel I put anyone at the slightest risk, and an area where - like most drivers, I think - I'm conscious that I don't always take 100% care, in terms of obeying every speed limit and never driving when I'm tired. At some level I'm always scared of ending up where the ex-MP did (and fair play to the Mail for once for not even mentioning his name or his party - Conservative, I gather from the Canterbury reference).
On the subject of landlords: I have this morning received a rather a rather alarming email from my local labour council, demanding that landlords 'do the right thing' and hand over their rental properties to the Council, as opposed to local private estate agents, so they can house the large number of vulnerable people waiting to be housed. It is not quite clear what deal they are offering, but there is mention of a 3 year deal, where the Council will take over the property and pay rent for it for that period, whilst looking after it for that period of time.
It’s obnoxiously phrased but a 3 year tenancy vs price is a reasonable offer to consider
Has Darkage sent you a copy of the letter to confirm the "obnoxious" phrases?
Telling a landlord that they should “do the right thing” and agree to your proposal is pretty obnoxious. It’s an attempt to apply moral pressure to what should be a business agreement
YMMV
Edit: I don’t feel the need to ask @darkage for documentary proof. I’ve no reason to believe I can’t take us comment at face value
It also tells you something about how they might manage the property.
If their argument for lending it to them in the first place is "do the right thing" then that's likely to be their attitude and excuse for any shortcomings whilst they're looking after it.
My sympathy is with councils. They have been in an invidious position, ever since they had to sell of much of their housing stock following Thatcher, compounded over the last 10 years by having their budgets pared to the bone so that they can provide little more than statutory services.
Councils have lots of statutory, and non-statutory, obligations to find housing for people: vulnerable adults, the homeless, young mothers, asylum seekers/refugees (including, for example, recent arrivals from Afghanistan), etc. And that's even before tackling their huge 'normal' waiting lists. Temporary accommodation is often exorbitant, with many in need ending up in grotty B&Bs or substandard accommodation. They are desperate to find housing, so it's hardly surprising that they try to persuade landlords to strike a deal with them. Good on them.
Then, they should offer good terms, always pay on time, insist the properties are well looked after, or kick them out, and treat the property owner as their client rather than puffing their chests out and declaring they really are.
Well, my local council does as you say. One of my friends bought a cheap house for his daughter to use while at university. Once she'd finished, he rented it out to the council. As Malcolm G above said, although the income was a bit less than he'd have got on the market, the great advantage was that he didn't have to do anything for three years. The council paid the rent even when there were gaps between tenants, and did all the maintenance etc. - very useful, particularly as he lives a good distance away. The house is very well looked after, the tenants have been fine (and if they're not, that's the council's problem), and the communication from the council is excellent. The deal contains a promise to return the property in the same condition as at the start. The deal suits everybody involved.
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
Absolutely. It's the only area of life where I feel I put anyone at the slightest risk, and an area where - like most drivers, I think - I'm conscious that I don't always take 100% care, in terms of obeying every speed limit and never driving when I'm tired. At some level I'm always scared of ending up where the ex-MP did (and fair play to the Mail for once for not even mentioning his name or his party - Conservative, I gather from the Canterbury reference).
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
No, OAP remains the same. You are also entitled to an Attendance Allowance, which has several levels. Further, as per my comments up thread about the Motor Trades Benevolent Association, are there any professional or social organisations to which you belong which might assist with support, both financial and advisory. I know mine does.
My sisters pension was assigned to the nursing home
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
'Her only toilet is upstairs' was always a serious cause for concern when I attended 'elderly discharge' meetings. One of our retirement planning choices was a bungalow for that very reason.
My other anecdote is about that.
The shallow staircase was Jacobean in a Derbyshire "Hall" (small one), that would have suited @Charles .
We downsized to a bungalow converted to a house with upstairs / downstairs bathrooms by the previous owner. And the silly bugger had put the shower *upstairs*, and the bath *downstairs*. Now reversed.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Indeed. But do you mean £1000 a week? If you got a care home for £1000 a month you bagged a bargain.
Not having any descendants I'm thinking about what I might need to fund myself. Does your State Pension get reduced when you go into a care home? It would be worth thinking about what I might have to pay as a top up to afford a nice country house rather than cabbage water and wee.
No, OAP remains the same. You are also entitled to an Attendance Allowance, which has several levels. Further, as per my comments up thread about the Motor Trades Benevolent Association, are there any professional or social organisations to which you belong which might assist with support, both financial and advisory. I know mine does.
My sisters pension was assigned to the nursing home
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
'Her only toilet is upstairs' was always a serious cause for concern when I attended 'elderly discharge' meetings. One of our retirement planning choices was a bungalow for that very reason.
My other anecdote is about that.
The shallow staircase was Jacobean in a Derbyshire "Hall" (small one), that would have suited @Charles .
We downsized to a bungalow converted to a house with upstairs / downstairs bathrooms by the previous owner. And the silly bugger had put the shower *upstairs*, and the bath *downstairs*. Now reversed.
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet. It also feels luxurious, without most people quite being able to realise why.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
We have future-proofed on that score by buying a bungalow.
But I guess at some stage the loft will become out of bounds.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
From conversations I’ve had , it’s the loss of fields bit which seems to get people agitated, followed by the look of houses themselves.
Going from Didcot to Abingdon, there were around 7-8 different plot areas that had been earmarked for development. Quiet fields set to be built on.
You live in those areas, surrounded by greenery is a big part of the appeal. Living next to a McEstate, not so much.
Its not really farmland that's used for new developments further north rather the 'emptiness' - former mining land, former military land, former railway land.
And with the landscaping that goes alongside the developments the useable countryside increases, country parks being more attractive than slagheaps.
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
The evidence is the government has taken a hit not just from the NI rise but pensioners who wanted 8% but now are to receive 2.5% and to pay the NI if they are working
I agree with both these measures and it is the right thing to do no matter the hit in the polls
The fairness of the NI rise generally is questionable but of course as had been said it is not sufficient by some distance, especially when social care is taken into account so the interesting thing is to see if Starmer can make any progress with his alternatives and I am particularly interested in his comments this morning that he wants to prevent us oldies going into care
Ageing is a process and unless he can reverse that then that is a rather strange policy
The GE is 2 years away and all I can say is it is anyone's guess
An interesting evening thread. For a long time I thought HYUFD was a character you-know-who had invented as a bit of a joke. But these days I have to remind myself he is an elected representative for the Conservative Party.
Quite extraordinary given his attitude. I know people don’t like the pile on but he’s as bad an advert for his party as the Momentum idiots for Labour. The reason why Momentum were so damaging for Corbyn was because we knew they were singing songs written by their leader. And the trouble for Johnson, is this feels the same.
- As a politician he’s dreadful. He’s more interested in chasing voters away. His reaction last night (I think to @MaxPB but it could have been @Philip_Thompson) was “good riddance and don’t let the door hit you on the way out”
In that sense he's no true Conservative - because if there's one thing they generally understand it is how to gain and hold power.
MaxPB and PT have both already stopped supporting the Conservatives but really it was directed at MaxPB in the heat of the moment who was calling me a 'Moron' amongst other things rather than being civil
To be honest you are simply an embarrassment to the party and yes you can say 'good riddance' if you like to me as I made the ultimate sin of voting for Blair twice
Your comments on here last night were excruciating
I didn't see the comments, but if someone called him a moron I think that was unfair - he's entitled to be militantly loyalist, and he always expresses it in polite terms. It's probably unwise in terms of member retention, but in the great scheme of things nothing any of us write here is exactly likely to change the government. We can all draw our own conclusions about loyalists in different parties (which is basically me too, though I don't criticise people who move on).
His demeaning of people who have voted for more than one party as impure is no less an insult than being called a moron. He is not polite, he just insults in a higher register, which people mistake for manners. In many ways I prefer the coarser ways of telling people what you think. It's a fair fight then between the eloquent and the not.
I’ve some sympathy with that. There’s something essentially undemocratic about an obsession with party loyalty.
As Shaw observed "My country right or wrong! My mother drunk or sober!"
Very interesting piece by an ex-MP about Anne Saccoolas, drawing on his experience of having a collision where a motorcyclist was killed after he turned out onto the wrong side of the road in Italy.
That is a stunning piece. You can not but feel sorry for all involved. The ex-MP sounds like a very decent man and he will probably be going through turmoil for the rest of his life. The Italian family also seem just wonderful. That could be any of us. I just imagine if it was me driving the car or if it were one of my children riding the bike and I just can not imagine being able to live with it, but people do every day. My stomach just churns thinking about it.
Thanks. Thought it was worth posting, and did not want to reignite yesterday's riot on this topic.
I note that the Saccoolas' lawyer has admitted that she did do dangerous driving (went over a blind summit on the wrong side of the road), and the reason she ran away was because the maximum 'causing death by dangerous driving' penalty is claimed to be excessive at 14 years.
I think a study of actual sentences and circumstances may have saved her a lot of trouble.
it may not have been entirely her decision. she was an ex (?) cia spook and was spirited out of mildenhall on a rendition express gulfstream the following day. its possible langley didnt want her in uk custody.
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
Always remember that mid-term polls have precisely sod all predictive power for the next general election.
We might just as well be trusting random number generators for the only poll that actually counts.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet. It also feels luxurious, without most people quite being able to realise why.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
We have future-proofed on that score by buying a bungalow.
But I guess at some stage the loft will become out of bounds.
You also design in provision for a lift, which are not *that* expensive (compared to residential care or moving house).
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
The evidence is the government has taken a hit not just from the NI rise but pensioners who wanted 8% but now are to receive 2.5% and to pay the NI if they are working
I agree with both these measures and it is the right thing to do no matter the hit in the polls
The fairness of the NI rise generally is questionable but of course as had been said it is not sufficient by some distance, especially when social care is taken into account so the interesting thing is to see if Starmer can make any progress with his alternatives and I am particularly interested in his comments this morning that he wants to prevent us oldies going into care
Ageing is a process and unless he can reverse that then that is a rather strange policy
The GE is 2 years away and all I can say is it is anyone's guess
I'm expecting CGT to get a clobbering next month, so that will perhaps balance out perceptions to a degree.
I think abortion has the potential to confound the prediction in the thread header. As far as I can tell from a brief google, political opinion on abortion is best described as, "Using the terms ‘pro-choice’ and ‘pro-life' is almost a party ID term"
However, the biggest challenge for the Democrats, particularly in the mid-terms, has often been in driving turnout. This surely has to be an issue with the potential to boost Democrat turnout.
If the Supreme Court doesn’t overturn the law when they eventually get around to hearing a case on the issue (as opposed to their current blind eye stance), then I can see it becoming very unpopular indeed with all but the most ideologically committed. Whether that happens before next year’s election is another matter.
In the longer term I think the state will flip. Next year feels too soon, though - which is why O’Rourke, despite being the Democrats best candidate by a distance, is very reluctant to commit.
In the long run neither 'on demand' or 'never' are sustainable positions from a humanistic, liberal point of view. One day we will look back on both positions as we do slavery now. The dialogue of the deaf between these two untenable positions is deeply depressing.
False equivalence. I support time limits but 'on demand' is far less repugnant than never. In practice, women by and large being not entirely devoid of intelligence and humanity, 'on demand' doesn't equate to casually aborting on a whim, or to loads of virtually full grown babies being terminated just prior to birth. A "woman's right to choose" means a "woman's right to make this difficult decision if she feels she has to".
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
Didn't we have one last weekend? I think they're normally fortnightly.
Though if any week is asking for a bonus episode, it's this one!
Linked thought- is there any way the government can postpone (definitely postpone and not kill oh no indeedy, just consulting a bit on some details) their HSC funding plans? Embarrassing, but maybe better than the alternative.
Anyone know anywhere reasonable to park in Edinburgh?
Isn't there a park and ride?
Several. For instance Ingliston near airport, Straiton to the south etc. Some are on the ring road. Lothian Buses website will explain. The Straiton one is reasonably quick for the south central area. Not so familiat with Ingliston for the western sector. Edit: but Ingliston has the trams to the major business/legal area around Haymarket/West End/head of Lothian Road/Fountainbridge.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
From conversations I’ve had , it’s the loss of fields bit which seems to get people agitated, followed by the look of houses themselves.
Going from Didcot to Abingdon, there were around 7-8 different plot areas that had been earmarked for development. Quiet fields set to be built on.
You live in those areas, surrounded by greenery is a big part of the appeal. Living next to a McEstate, not so much.
Its not really farmland that's used for new developments further north rather the 'emptiness' - former mining land, former military land, former railway land.
And with the landscaping that goes alongside the developments the useable countryside increases, country parks being more attractive than slagheaps.
Sensibly, you also look at the quality of the farmland.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
My anecdote, just to drop into PBers' heads, one of my standard things advising people on house design is to make your staircase at a rake of 32-35 degrees, not the usual 42 degrees.
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet. It also feels luxurious, without most people quite being able to realise why.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
We have future-proofed on that score by buying a bungalow.
But I guess at some stage the loft will become out of bounds.
You also design in provision for a lift, which are not *that* expensive (compared to residential care or moving house).
That's a very good point. With all of the costs and taxes associated with moving home, you could fund a lot of modifications to make a home more suitable.
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
Is it not the case that those who are bi-lingual have significantly less chance of getting dementia?
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
Always remember that mid-term polls have precisely sod all predictive power for the next general election.
We might just as well be trusting random number generators for the only poll that actually counts.
Not quite. Had the Conservatives stayed ahead mid-term, they really would have been home and dry for 2023, absent an absolute black swan during the campaign.
A Labour lead mid-term is by no means sufficient to make the next GE interesting, but it is necessary.
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
As I said the other day - this looks like typical midterm. So the typical expectation would be the latter.
But, sometimes, unusual things happen.
Just as Raducanu's run to the US Open final will encourage us all to believe the next teenager in any sport can rise instantly to the very top, so the Opposition will nurture hopes that, the next era-defining government implosion will occur now, and accusations that the government has gone off the rails will be objective commentary, rather than partisan hyperbole.
Regression poll by Electoral Calculus and FindoutnowUK for Property Chronicle shows where the Nimbys are in Britain. Some areas (green) want more property development locally, and others (red) don't.
How odd! @justin124 was telling us yesterday that Scottish Labour VI will follow English Labour VI as night follows day. Cos the two countries are identical and always mimic each other’s social trends and voting patterns. Or some such guff.
Justin doesn’t get out much.
This bit explains why the plan was dropped:
"There was also relative support for development from younger voters, and from those living in London (particularly), Scotland, the North East and the East Midlands, those in areas with lower house prices, working-class voters, Labour and Liberal Democrat voters, and those who voted Remain in the EU referendum.
There was relative opposition from Conservative voters (strongly), those living in the South and East of England, older voters, professionals, Leave voters and those living in higher house-price areas."
It is the Tories that are the Nimbys. Come over to the dark side @Philip_Thompson, we have cookies*.
* organic vegan ones of course.
We can see that support for local development is in London, South Wales, Scotland and crucially parts of the 'Red Wall' areas and the West Midlands. The 'Red Wall' includes areas around Manchester, South Yorkshire, Sunderland and Teesside, which are Conservative strategic targets.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
From conversations I’ve had , it’s the loss of fields bit which seems to get people agitated, followed by the look of houses themselves.
Going from Didcot to Abingdon, there were around 7-8 different plot areas that had been earmarked for development. Quiet fields set to be built on.
You live in those areas, surrounded by greenery is a big part of the appeal. Living next to a McEstate, not so much.
Its not really farmland that's used for new developments further north rather the 'emptiness' - former mining land, former military land, former railway land.
And with the landscaping that goes alongside the developments the useable countryside increases, country parks being more attractive than slagheaps.
Sensibly, you also look at the quality of the farmland.
Hmm. I'd rather have old railway land and slagheaps than modern boxes. Oxford for instance used to be great fun to explore when visiting friends living in the railway/canal corridor area. Now absolutely packed with commuter hutches, and my fave pubs gone.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
A lot is to do with the nature of the building. Basically these days you want purpose built, with en-suite/wet rooms and lots of amenity space. But that’s premium, while gen 1 (from the 80s/90s) converted homes with shared bathrooms are much cheaper
Anyone know anywhere reasonable to park in Edinburgh?
Isn't there a park and ride?
Several. For instance Ingliston near airport, Straiton to the south etc. Some are on the ring road. Lothian Buses website will explain. The Straiton one is reasonably quick for the south central area. Not so familiat with Ingliston for the western sector.
Is Ingliston where the Scottish metropolitan woke elite live? Islington north of the border?
"However, although getting older is undeniably the biggest risk factor for dementia, research suggests up to one in three cases of dementia are preventable. Modifiable risk factors include:
diabetes high alcohol intake high blood pressure lack of exercise low educational attainment obesity poor physical health smoking"
A very idealistic list and not easily achieved
Alcohol, exercise, obesity and smoking are attainable adjustments.
Those should have a secondary affect on diabetes, high blood pressure and poor physical health.
Educational attainment can, of course, be addressed but suspect it will be too late by that point to impact risk of dementia
Is it not the case that those who are bi-lingual have significantly less chance of getting dementia?
Will this be ‘the week the polls changed’ or will we look back and say ‘do you remember that period in 2021 when the Tories briefly dropped in the polls?’?
Always remember that mid-term polls have precisely sod all predictive power for the next general election.
We might just as well be trusting random number generators for the only poll that actually counts.
Not quite. Had the Conservatives stayed ahead mid-term, they really would have been home and dry for 2023, absent an absolute black swan during the campaign.
A Labour lead mid-term is by no means sufficient to make the next GE interesting, but it is necessary.
Not true - I looked at data for the last forty years, and mid-term polls simply have no predictive power at all. They only start being anything like a true guide six months or so out.
We can argue about why that's the case, but historically in UK general elections it has been.
Apparently Starmer is going to look at taxes on landlords and share dealings but his big plan for social care is prevention and more home care
Just how put of touch can anyone be by saying he wants to prevent in effect ageing
And home care is already very much used by the elderly until it becomes impossible
Off topic
I would be going after unearned income too, and my family has a dog in the unearned income race.
As to the "care at home" issue there are lots of benefits ( and also a number of pitfalls) to this. In the 1980s my wife was a Home Care Manager for a City LA in Northern England providing such things as meals on wheels and home helps (different I know from "care" but an indication of how interventionist councils used to be in delivering home care).
As an anecdote, after my late father had his car accident and spent six months in hospital before being turfed out totally immobile I needed to find a private nursing home. I visited three. One was so desperately depressing, smelling of cabbage water and stale urine, I couldn't wait to get out. The next was depressing and just smelled of cabbage water. The third was fantastic, like a country house hotel, and that is where he finished his days. He didn't want to go to any of them if he could have avoided it, but needs must. I would say if there is anything one can do to keep people safe in comfortable surroundings, that is significantly better for their mental health than paying £1000 a week for dubious privilege of inhaling the aroma of other people's stale wee, 24/7.
P.S. it cost my father less for a nurse to drive from Bridgend to Ogmore-by-Sea (about 4 miles) than it costs my mother-in- law for someone to walk 50 yards up a corridor to attend to her.
The whole system is bollocks, and has been made no better by this week's intervention, so why not look at all avenues.
Yes, I agree. my own anecdote is a relative with Parkinsons (and minimal savings) - wonderful Cornwall CC arranged 4 visits a day by care staff which enabled him to stay at home for 2-3 years until he started falling even within the flat. We then looked at the range of care homes, and found that £900/month would get one which social services indicated would get one which I was advised against, while £1000 would get a country house sort of place with care that has proved to be outstanding. I offered to cover the difference and the deal was done. I think it was all done very much in his best interests, and I gather that's not the universal experience. It should be.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
Good morning Nick
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
I think he has muddled up weeks and months. Standard average weekly fee is around 800-1000 for LA segment
Didn't we have one last weekend? I think they're normally fortnightly.
Though if any week is asking for a bonus episode, it's this one!
Linked thought- is there any way the government can postpone (definitely postpone and not kill oh no indeedy, just consulting a bit on some details) their HSC funding plans? Embarrassing, but maybe better than the alternative.
Postponing would be hard - because they've said the money is needed immediately for NHS recovery from Covid. I suppose that if the winter is more difficult than anticipated, and the economy consequently looks weaker, then they would have a pretext to postpone tax rises, arguing that the economy would need to be stronger to bear them.
The more fruitful way out would be if the economic recovery was stronger than expected, in which case they might decide to fudge the numbers and declare that the tax rise was no longer necessary.
Anyone know anywhere reasonable to park in Edinburgh?
Isn't there a park and ride?
Several. For instance Ingliston near airport, Straiton to the south etc. Some are on the ring road. Lothian Buses website will explain. The Straiton one is reasonably quick for the south central area. Not so familiat with Ingliston for the western sector.
Is Ingliston where the Scottish metropolitan woke elite live? Islington north of the border?
I doubt it very much! It's next to the airport - in fact is the airport. Is West Drayton chic? I don't know.
Suden thought: not sure if the park and ride there is free. Gallowgate had better check. The others are, IIRC.
Wholly off topic, Tony Blair was on R4 yesterday talking about Afghanistan and the war on terror. In theory his politically weakest subject.
The eloquence, the ability to engage with the question, the fact he actually possesses a degree of intelligence… it made me oh so nostalgic. Like a living ghost from another era, a political ancient mariner stopping the R4 listener leaving them sadder and possibly wiser.
Comments
I can't speak for others, but the times when I become annoyed at ethical demands are usually the times when, on reflection, I was not paying enough attention to them. Others' experiences may differ.
My theory is that its not just the quantity of new houses its the quality.
In the old mining areas the new estates being built are better, and more expensive, than the old terraces and semis in the pit villages and so are popular.
But in the commuter belts the opposite applies.
In matters of one-to-one jousting I am quite happy to believe any posters in the heat of the moment. I have to admit since joining pb I ahve learned a lot about other people's views and the arguements they use.
https://twitter.com/typesfast/status/1436407069872119808?s=19
Slateford too. Depends which end of town you want.
Also, importantly, the narrow price difference does suggest that the savings made by offering minimal standards are actually quite small - the issue may be more that the owners can get a nice income by being the cheapest local home from council-funded people without relatives able to top up at all, and then just operate with the cheapest approach that doesn't actually get them closed down.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkwright_Town
An interesting thing was that the slate tiles on the rooftops of the old houses was worth quite a bit of money, so they carefully removed them one by one.
I am surprised that you found a care home at £900-£1,000 per month when today they range from £3,500 - £5,000 per month
How long ago was this if you do not mind me asking
Blair or Cameron would have stf up and let the Government keep digging.
Nonetheless social care is such a cluster**** that any discourse should be welcome. The Johnsonians on here that were not insensed by the N I hike are raving that Johnson has finally grasped the social care bull by the horns. I know I will beat up on Johnson, any opportunity I find, however when one drills down on this announcement it is hard to see past the (for good or for bad) tax rise.
Going from Didcot to Abingdon, there were around 7-8 different plot areas that had been earmarked for development. Quiet fields set to be built on.
You live in those areas, surrounded by greenery is a big part of the appeal. Living next to a McEstate, not so much.
In many ways I prefer the coarser ways of telling people what you think. It's a fair fight then between the eloquent and the not.
Councils have lots of statutory, and non-statutory, obligations to find housing for people: vulnerable adults, the homeless, young mothers, asylum seekers/refugees (including, for example, recent arrivals from Afghanistan), etc. And that's even before tackling their huge 'normal' waiting lists. Temporary accommodation is often exorbitant, with many in need ending up in grotty B&Bs or substandard accommodation. They are desperate to find housing, so it's hardly surprising that they try to persuade landlords to strike a deal with them. Good on them.
I'd also add that abortion should be easy and quick to access. The later an abortion occurs the more difficult it becomes, and so to minimise distress we should make it as easy to access as early as possible.
The tax rise is largely going to the NHS. There is the social care liability cap, to come in a couple of years’ time, and a bit more funding going in, but the system otherwise remains largely untouched.
I note that the Saccoolas' lawyer has admitted that she did do dangerous driving (went over a blind summit on the wrong side of the road), and the reason she ran away was because the maximum 'causing death by dangerous driving' penalty is claimed to be excessive at 14 years.
I think a study of actual sentences and circumstances may have saved her a lot of trouble.
I don't drive much now, but I often used to drive to work in the morning, 2 or 3 miles, and have no memory of large parts of the journey. It was so scary in retrospect.
There’s something essentially undemocratic about an obsession with party loyalty.
Standard here seems to be minimum 12 weeks to get appointments for anything unless you are going in on a stretcher.
Private care home fees round here average £1,000 per week
(sorry)
My friends who got big H2B loans on the other hand...
It costs about a square metre of hall or landing, and will give an extra several years of being able to walk upstairs comfortably, which helps with staying in your own home for longer. And you get a bigger closet. It also feels luxurious, without most people quite being able to realise why.
My mum reckoned that she got about an extra 5 years being able to go upstairs easily.
I'm in the pub because I'm double vaccinated. If there are a few unvaxxers in there, I don't really care.
Further, as per my comments up thread about the Motor Trades Benevolent Association, are there any professional or social organisations to which you belong which might assist with support, both financial and advisory. I know mine does.
But it would liven up local politics quite a bit if a huge proportion of local expenditure had to be raised locally and councils were given unlimited rights of local taxation, with discretion to tax agricultural land, with central grant only to even out anomalies. Actually it would probably beat cage fighting as a spectacle.
One of our retirement planning choices was a bungalow for that very reason.
The shallow staircase was Jacobean in a Derbyshire "Hall" (small one), that would have suited @Charles .
We downsized to a bungalow converted to a house with upstairs / downstairs bathrooms by the previous owner. And the silly bugger had put the shower *upstairs*, and the bath *downstairs*. Now reversed.
But I guess at some stage the loft will become out of bounds.
And with the landscaping that goes alongside the developments the useable countryside increases, country parks being more attractive than slagheaps.
I agree with both these measures and it is the right thing to do no matter the hit in the polls
The fairness of the NI rise generally is questionable but of course as had been said it is not sufficient by some distance, especially when social care is taken into account so the interesting thing is to see if Starmer can make any progress with his alternatives and I am particularly interested in his comments this morning that he wants to prevent us oldies going into care
Ageing is a process and unless he can reverse that then that is a rather strange policy
The GE is 2 years away and all I can say is it is anyone's guess
We might just as well be trusting random number generators for the only poll that actually counts.
But I hope it gets more fundamental than that.
Never, otoh, means that once a woman falls pregnant her status as a human being is degraded to that of carrier of the unborn child within her. Regardless of her own feelings on the matter she must carry it in her womb and expanding belly for 9 months and deliver it into the world. Imagine being in that position if you don't wish to become its mother. Brutal. And think about what it means and represents. It means the state owns her body. It's an overt (ie in law) statement that women matter less than men. It's indefensible and it's no surprise that so many of those who seek to defend it are in thrall to backward patriarchal religions.
Though if any week is asking for a bonus episode, it's this one!
Linked thought- is there any way the government can postpone (definitely postpone and not kill oh no indeedy, just consulting a bit on some details) their HSC funding plans? Embarrassing, but maybe better than the alternative.
A Labour lead mid-term is by no means sufficient to make the next GE interesting, but it is necessary.
But, sometimes, unusual things happen.
Just as Raducanu's run to the US Open final will encourage us all to believe the next teenager in any sport can rise instantly to the very top, so the Opposition will nurture hopes that, the next era-defining government implosion will occur now, and accusations that the government has gone off the rails will be objective commentary, rather than partisan hyperbole.
We can argue about why that's the case, but historically in UK general elections it has been.
The more fruitful way out would be if the economic recovery was stronger than expected, in which case they might decide to fudge the numbers and declare that the tax rise was no longer necessary.
Suden thought: not sure if the park and ride there is free. Gallowgate had better check. The others are, IIRC.
The eloquence, the ability to engage with the question, the fact he actually possesses a degree of intelligence… it made me oh so nostalgic. Like a living ghost from another era, a political ancient mariner stopping the R4 listener leaving them sadder and possibly wiser.