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.
My father had an integral garage converted into a bathroom, so that he could stay in his own home without having to manage the stairs. Sadly, he died two days after it was finished; but the idea was right.
I would just say the one thing Boris is correct on is that this is a plan and the first to be passed by vote in the HOC
It has flaws and unfairness but from next April NI will rise by 1.25% and then in April 23 and April 24, just before the election, it will actually be shown on pay slips as a hypothecated tax for the NHS and social care
Any proposals put forward by Starmer, or anyone else, will not be able to be acted on before the next GE and there will be so many moving parts by then that the prediction for that GE outcome is unpredictable.
While polls are interesting, especially crossover ones that occur so dramatically, waiting for each and every poll may be fun but they are totally unable at this stage to predict GE24
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.
My father had an integral garage converted into a bathroom, so that he could stay in his own home without having to manage the stairs. Sadly, he died two days after it was finished; but the idea was right.
Liked purely to approve of the idea being right. It's so difficult to know how long x will be needed - sometimes days as in your case, sometimes decades.
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.
Aiui Oxford Council got themselves into a reet pickle.
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils for them to build on.
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.
Aiui Oxford Council got themselves into a reet pickle.
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils to build on.
Led by Donkeys. And turnips.
Did the new houses get built? If so, that is a good result for the renters.
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
Same amount, though. Part of the fees.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
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.
I simply do not think they will row back now
The money has to be found and many billions more to be honest
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.
In eg Scottish Building Regs there is iirc required to be provision for where someone will work from home, including where electric sockets will go.
It is all about thinking ahead a long way.
In my rental renovations, for example, I pre-install underfloor ducts with drawstring to possible media areas (where I put extra sockets) because I don't want a hairy-arsed gorilla from Sky or Virgin drilling holes through everything and wrecking my brilliant insulation to save 4 minutes.
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.
My father had an integral garage converted into a bathroom, so that he could stay in his own home without having to manage the stairs. Sadly, he died two days after it was finished; but the idea was right.
I always think that is the best way. It’s also a return to the old way in which several generations would live on the same house, which would then help with issues such as childcare (at least in many working class areas).
Some sources differ as to whether Texas is part of the "South", and culturally it is a bit of a halfway house. It's probably not particularly helpful to try to predict Texas based on the South in general.
Though 1 poll on the issue showed Texans favoured outlawing abortion after 6 weeks by 48% to 42%.
Very much it went on party lines, 68% of Republican voters backed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks, 63% of Democrats opposed outlawing abortion after 6 weeks
On the "on party lines" thing, I think its probably the other way round - a lot of pro-life people vote Republician because they are pro-life, rather than being pro-life because they are Republicans. If the parties were somehow both to flip position on this issue, and this issue alone, I think we would see a substantial chunk of American voters flipping with them.
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.
Aiui Oxford Council got themselves into a reet pickle.
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils for them to build on.
Led by Donkeys. And turnips.
Yes, shame what they did to the Canal-Railway area, still nice to walk along the Canal though
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
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.
As may be but still doesn’t hide the fact that, when it comes to making decisions that had a detrimental long-term impact, TB wins the worst PM award hands down, at least in modern times
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.
My father had an integral garage converted into a bathroom, so that he could stay in his own home without having to manage the stairs. Sadly, he died two days after it was finished; but the idea was right.
Liked purely to approve of the idea being right. It's so difficult to know how long x will be needed - sometimes days as in your case, sometimes decades.
Thanks. Yes, it's interesting because my father had to spend a couple of months in a care home while his own home was being converted. He absolutely hated not being at home, and his health deteriorated very rapidly while he was away. I can't help thinking he'd have survived longer if he could have stayed in his own home throughout. He didn't get lonely in his own house; the highlight of his day was flirting with some of the care visitors who came to tend to him.
I guess I'm supporting Starmer's view that where possible, people who want to should be enabled to stay in their own home as long as possible. Everybody's different, of course, and that wouldn't suit some.
"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?
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.
Agreed, my point was more why people in Southern England seem to get more agitated. There’s not much of this type of land, hence its fields, wooded areas etc that is used.
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.
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.
You're a lot less likely to sprain your ankle walking over a landscaped hill than you were on its previous incarnation as a slagheap.
Old railway land is great for green corridors once the tracks have been removed..
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
Same amount, though. Part of the fees.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
Depends on the management, including the owner. You can get reports from the CQC on places you fancy, but a visit is recommended. You do need to find one that, at least at the time, has a mixed clientele, remembering that women tend to live longer than men.
I recall visiting, for professional purposes a care home where, in the medicines area I found a cupboard full of half to one-third full bottles of spirits, plus a few mixers. Apparently the residents had a party every Friday night! That was quite a long time ago; not sure I'd be able to find it again.
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.
That's what I thought. Theres enough bad leasehold flats for sale, why don't the Council just buy them.
Because they don’t have the cash, and there are restrictions on the amount they are allowed to borrow ? I’m not an expert on the issue, but wasn’t it Thatcher who wrecked council housing by refusing to let them reinvest the proceeds of council house sales ? It’s never recovered.
I think on the entirely logical grounds that councils are about the last people you would ever entrust with problems like building and owning housing stock.
However one cuts it, the problem is too many people, not enough houses. One can tinker at the margins, but unless someone has a plan to get rid of lots of people, the only solution is to build more houses, and the main roadblock to that is planning.
I would just say the one thing Boris is correct on is that this is a plan and the first to be passed by vote in the HOC
It has flaws and unfairness but from next April NI will rise by 1.25% and then in April 23 and April 24, just before the election, it will actually be shown on pay slips as a hypothecated tax for the NHS and social care
Any proposals put forward by Starmer, or anyone else, will not be able to be acted on before the next GE and there will be so many moving parts by then that the prediction for that GE outcome is unpredictable.
While polls are interesting, especially crossover ones that occur so dramatically, waiting for each and every poll may be fun but they are totally unable at this stage to predict GE24
I could see them then moving *all* NHS and care funding to the H&SC levy at some point. It might make it easier to increase NHS funding if it came from increasing the levy, which people might start to see as more of an insurance payment, rather than NI and IT, which could then have lower headline rates.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
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.
Aiui Oxford Council got themselves into a reet pickle.
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils to build on.
Led by Donkeys. And turnips.
Did the new houses get built? If so, that is a good result for the renters.
To an extent one can understand the problem. It was a coalition of Councils campaigning for green belt release powers iirc.
There has been some release, I think.
I think one basic issue was the dogmatic cockup of rental regulation. Not sure if that has been remedied. Imo that would be where to start.
When I last looked (years ago) they were one of a few Councils trying quite aggressively to get students out of rentals into institutions.
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.
Aiui Oxford Council got themselves into a reet pickle.
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils to build on.
Led by Donkeys. And turnips.
Did the new houses get built? If so, that is a good result for the renters.
To an extent one can understand the problem. It was a coalition of Councils campaigning for green belt release powers iirc.
There has been some release, I think.
I think one basic issue was the dogmatic cockup of rental regulation. Not sure if that has been remedied. Imo that would be where to start.
When I last looked (years ago) they were one of a few Councils deliberately trying to get students out of rentals into institutions.
Doesn't surprise me. There has been a massive development of student flats (for graduates, I think) along the railway line. Which has caused heartburn as it intrudes into the view of the dreaming spires from Port Meadow.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
But how long does the average person stay in hospital?? They can't be out within one day, which is what his logic implies.
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.
Thanks. I am not suggesting equivalence. I am saying that the two positions are both extreme ones, and both fail to balance rights and realities in a truly humanist way. Both sides are in denial about this.
If your argument was sound then of course in a liberal, free contraception society in which most men are not rapists abortion on demand would be reasonably uncommon but by no means unknown, and I think that is the major flaw in your case.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
When the NHS adds a new cancer or whatever unit to an existing hospital, Johnson calls it a "new hospital". So maybe that is where there is confusion.
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.
My father had an integral garage converted into a bathroom, so that he could stay in his own home without having to manage the stairs. Sadly, he died two days after it was finished; but the idea was right.
Liked purely to approve of the idea being right. It's so difficult to know how long x will be needed - sometimes days as in your case, sometimes decades.
Thanks. Yes, it's interesting because my father had to spend a couple of months in a care home while his own home was being converted. He absolutely hated not being at home, and his health deteriorated very rapidly while he was away. I can't help thinking he'd have survived longer if he could have stayed in his own home throughout. He didn't get lonely in his own house; the highlight of his day was flirting with some of the care visitors who came to tend to him.
I guess I'm supporting Starmer's view that where possible, people who want to should be enabled to stay in their own home as long as possible. Everybody's different, of course, and that wouldn't suit some.
I would just say that that happens anyway
Us oldies will do everything and anything possible to stay in our homes but we cannot prevent ageing and it may well become inevitable
It is not a policy when it already happens and is driven by human nature
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).
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
When the NHS adds a new cancer or whatever unit to an existing hospital, Johnson calls it a "new hospital". So maybe that is where there is confusion.
Not all hospitals care for covid inpatients, of course. I rather doubt 'dental' hospitals do, for instance.
Also no doubt such places as this cause confusion -
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.
Nah, don’t like Jacobean - windows are too small. Carolinian or Queen Anne for me thanks
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
I'm quite a way from it being an issue, and a fit healthy 56 year old who runs marathons. So I hope it won't happen. But I also live on my own and, unless I suddenly get better at forming relationships, likely to remain so, which I think puts you more at risk of using care. And it is a bit random.
Ridiculous if you can't top the state provision up yourself. It's my money and I should be able to spend it as I wish. And as I have no kids, while it would be nice to leave more money to younger family members, it's not an imperative.
Presumably I wouldn't get away with a direct debit to a trusted friend who would then redirect it to the care home...
As you say, worth taking advice and planning for.
To be serious, it would make the difference between me planning positively for the last part of my life, and feeling that I had no option but to open my veins in a warm bath.
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).
His name was there somewhere.
He wrote the article!
Someone, forget who, was remarking on the apparent anonymity.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
Crossed wires? Where is the quote from? Is it real?
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
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.
Yes, that was my limited personal experience - I suppose I talked with him half a dozen times over the years, and whatever I was bringing up, he instantly grasped what I meant, retrieved from his memory salient associated points, and gave a non-trivial, intelligent reply. I didn't always like the answer, but it was undeniably impressive. Mandelson, who is not the most engaging of people, has the same ability. Gordon, by contrast (who I actually like more at a personal level), would say "Hmph." and move on.
I think it's one reason Tony embarked on the "masochism strategy" of agreeing to debate virulently hostile people on TV. He didn't see it as masochism, but an opportunity to deploy his skills.
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.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
When the NHS adds a new cancer or whatever unit to an existing hospital, Johnson calls it a "new hospital". So maybe that is where there is confusion.
Again, in fairness to Lilico, he is basing his post on the only available number. PBers often protest this number, but AFAIK fail to produce any other reliable quantification.
"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?
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Isn't this a difference in denominator? There are ~1,500 hospitals in the UK, depending on how you count them. Therefore it is one per patient per hospital. It is not 1 per hospital that would have the ability to take COVID patients. There aren't anything like 1,500 acute hospitals or hospitals with respiratory beds in the UK (a number in the low to mid hundreds).
COVID patients are of course concentrated at a small fraction of the UK's total number of hospitals.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
And I've demonstrated that the number is bogus by looking at the details, and presented others - e.g. the numbers of hospitals that have critical care facilities, or A&E departments.
One of the two things that are likely to make me worried that the NHS is about to be overwhelmed is bogus arguments that it isn't from people who are evidently innumerate.
There are three Westminster constituencies in Stoke. Is it really credible that there are seven hospitals in Stoke caring for Covid inpatients? Can you honestly tell me that bears any relation to reality?
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
I'm quite a way from it being an issue, and a fit healthy 56 year old who runs marathons. So I hope it won't happen. But I also live on my own and, unless I suddenly get better at forming relationships, likely to remain so, which I think puts you more at risk of using care. And it is a bit random.
Ridiculous if you can't top the state provision up yourself. It's my money and I should be able to spend it as I wish. And as I have no kids, while it would be nice to leave more money to younger family members, it's not an imperative.
Presumably I wouldn't get away with a direct debit to a trusted friend who would then redirect it to the care home...
As you say, worth taking advice and planning for.
To be serious, it would make the difference between me planning positively for the last part of my life, and feeling that I had no option but to open my veins in a warm bath.
There are quite a variety of options. It's not 'one or another'. Near us is a large block of supported flats, privately run, nothing to do with any official body. There's a wide variety of support available, from 'none' upwards. Residents come and go, park their cars in the grounds. We looked at it at one stage, but we do like being able to walk to our various activities, and it's a bit out of town. And at the moment our garden is manageable. Incidentally, that was what did for my father. He retired, they moved, and he got into gardening, complex arrangements of flower beds, pathways and so on, and after a while it got too much for him.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
The state pension really won't cover the difference, as I understand it. The council will take your pensions (state and private) to help them pay for the not-nice home, and you aren't allowed to use any savings to top up unless you're entirely self-funding. You need a reliable relative who is ready to pay the difference.
But you're right that your costs in the care home will be minimal.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
And I've demonstrated that the number is bogus by looking at the details, and presented others - e.g. the numbers of hospitals that have critical care facilities, or A&E departments.
One of the two things that are likely to make me worried that the NHS is about to be overwhelmed is bogus arguments that it isn't from people who are evidently innumerate.
There are three Westminster constituencies in Stoke. Is it really credible that there are seven hospitals in Stoke caring for Covid inpatients? Can you honestly tell me that bears any relation to reality?
As I say, those with better data are welcome to produce it. Lilico’s post is based on the only published quantification.
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
Although some parts of North London have more in common with Wester Hailes.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
The state pension really won't cover the difference, as I understand it. The council will take your pensions (state and private) to help them pay for the not-nice home, and you aren't allowed to use any savings to top up unless you're entirely self-funding. You need a reliable relative who is ready to pay the difference.
But you're right that your costs in the care home will be minimal.
You remain eligible for the state pension. However you can be expected to use it to fund the cost of care, I think it is very confusing to say the Council is "taking away" your pension. It is simpler to say that if you are in a position where you would want to pay the extra, your state pension is not available for the "nice home premium" because it is already being used to meet the cost of the "not nice" home.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
Though the chances of Jezza or equivalent being elected in Morningside would be anorexic..
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.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
I was merely being whimsical actually, Ingliston being an anagram of Islington.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
The state pension really won't cover the difference, as I understand it. The council will take your pensions (state and private) to help them pay for the not-nice home, and you aren't allowed to use any savings to top up unless you're entirely self-funding. You need a reliable relative who is ready to pay the difference.
But you're right that your costs in the care home will be minimal.
Not sure that's quite right Mr P. I'd certainly recommend carefully looking at the situation in advance. And Nice vs Not Nice isn't always a question of money. All that glitters is not gold. There were one or two very fancy looking places that I inspected that seemed soulless.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
And I've demonstrated that the number is bogus by looking at the details, and presented others - e.g. the numbers of hospitals that have critical care facilities, or A&E departments.
One of the two things that are likely to make me worried that the NHS is about to be overwhelmed is bogus arguments that it isn't from people who are evidently innumerate.
There are three Westminster constituencies in Stoke. Is it really credible that there are seven hospitals in Stoke caring for Covid inpatients? Can you honestly tell me that bears any relation to reality?
As I say, those with better data are welcome to produce it. Lilico’s post is based on the only published quantification.
You know it's a bullshit figure, yet you insist on using it because reality scares you. Lame.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Isn't this a difference in denominator? There are ~1,500 hospitals in the UK, depending on how you count them. Therefore it is one per patient per hospital. It is not 1 per hospital that would have the ability to take COVID patients. There aren't anything like 1,500 acute hospitals or hospitals with respiratory beds in the UK (a number in the low to mid hundreds).
COVID patients are of course concentrated at a small fraction of the UK's total number of hospitals.
At the peak of the wave in January only about half of the 550 hospitals and trusts listed in the Excel file here had any recorded covid inpatients.
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
I was merely being whimsical actually, Ingilston being an anagram of Islington.
I thought so I just have a preference for garnishing whimsy with nice crunchy useless factoids.
I would just say the one thing Boris is correct on is that this is a plan and the first to be passed by vote in the HOC
It has flaws and unfairness but from next April NI will rise by 1.25% and then in April 23 and April 24, just before the election, it will actually be shown on pay slips as a hypothecated tax for the NHS and social care
Any proposals put forward by Starmer, or anyone else, will not be able to be acted on before the next GE and there will be so many moving parts by then that the prediction for that GE outcome is unpredictable.
While polls are interesting, especially crossover ones that occur so dramatically, waiting for each and every poll may be fun but they are totally unable at this stage to predict GE24
Has anyone done an analysis of how much the retired are losing by getting 2.5% not 8%? That’s a major contribution - the tax rise is only half the equation.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
Crossed wires? Where is the quote from? Is it real?
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
Crossed wires? Where is the quote from? Is it real?
Are we being softened up for the winter lockdown already?
Whether or not government do anything I assumed last year that there would be a push from many quarters for people to continue mask wearing and perhaps limit trips to crowded places in the winters to come, on the basis of the usual winter flu dangers.
Well if the difference between Nice and not-Nice is really only £100pw, then my state pension will pay for it. While I reckon my occupational pension isn't quite enough to live on (I have a personal pension that will be used to bridge the gap 60-67) presumably once I am in care home, my personal expenses will be a lot lower.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
The state pension really won't cover the difference, as I understand it. The council will take your pensions (state and private) to help them pay for the not-nice home, and you aren't allowed to use any savings to top up unless you're entirely self-funding. You need a reliable relative who is ready to pay the difference.
But you're right that your costs in the care home will be minimal.
You remain eligible for the state pension. However you can be expected to use it to fund the cost of care, I think it is very confusing to say the Council is "taking away" your pension. It is simpler to say that if you are in a position where you would want to pay the extra, your state pension is not available for the "nice home premium" because it is already being used to meet the cost of the "not nice" home.
Yes, that's what I meant - apologies if it was confusing. Essentially you have two choices:
1. Fund it all yourself 2. Let the council fund it, using all but a minimum amount of your pensions to help them fund it.
In case 2, friends and relatives, but not you, can top it up.
I agree that there isn't a direct correlation between "nice" and "more expensive".
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
And I've demonstrated that the number is bogus by looking at the details, and presented others - e.g. the numbers of hospitals that have critical care facilities, or A&E departments.
One of the two things that are likely to make me worried that the NHS is about to be overwhelmed is bogus arguments that it isn't from people who are evidently innumerate.
There are three Westminster constituencies in Stoke. Is it really credible that there are seven hospitals in Stoke caring for Covid inpatients? Can you honestly tell me that bears any relation to reality?
As I say, those with better data are welcome to produce it. Lilico’s post is based on the only published quantification.
You know it's a bullshit figure, yet you insist on using it because reality scares you. Lame.
Rubbish. I merely posted someone else’s tweet. Give over with the childish insults.
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?
Ingliston is more known for the car boot sale crowd. Morningside is the stereotypical Edinburgh equivalent to North London.
Though the chances of Jezza or equivalent being elected in Morningside would be anorexic..
Yeah. Labour still got in there. Ian Murray MP. Not exactly a Corbynite.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
The QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle Quayside FFS.
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
The “no top up provision” is because of the insane concept of equality that the payers have. It’s the same with NHS - either you are all NHS (ie you don’t get to pay extra for a new medicine prior to NICE review regardless of whether it is approved) or you are all private (you can have the medicine but the NHS will charge you for everything else as well). Apparently topping up encouraged rich people to use state provided services that they have contributed to through taxation.
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.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
The “no top up provision” is because of the insane concept of equality that the payers have. It’s the same with NHS - either you are all NHS (ie you don’t get to pay extra for a new medicine prior to NICE review regardless of whether it is approved) or you are all private (you can have the medicine but the NHS will charge you for everything else as well). Apparently topping up encouraged rich people to use state provided services that they have contributed to through taxation.
Under the gov't plans, which would see a contribution if your assets are between £26k and £86k - it must be a top up system, or a contribution system which is a top up when looked at upside down.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
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.
I rather think the Dutch have it right with their dementia village. It sounds a very thought through place. Pity that my Dutch isn't very good!
My Mother in Law died last week, which may be part of my gloomy mood. She had been in residential care, self funded from the sale of her bungalow. She had been widowed a couple of years and could no longer manage on her own between physical frailty, mostly arthritis, and getting rather amiably muddled.
She rather enjoyed the company, being cooked for and did lots of arts and crafts as well as activities such as poetry readings. She didn't have a bad few years at all, except for covid restrictions, and the home managed those as well as they could. It cost about £80 000 in all, so wouldn't have been affected by the recent announced plans, which in any case don't start for 2 years or cover accommodation or food. She has an estate of a little less than the same sum.
She was a lovely lady and will be much missed, and enjoyable company to nearly the end. RIP
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
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.
Thanks. I am not suggesting equivalence. I am saying that the two positions are both extreme ones, and both fail to balance rights and realities in a truly humanist way. Both sides are in denial about this.
If your argument was sound then of course in a liberal, free contraception society in which most men are not rapists abortion on demand would be reasonably uncommon but by no means unknown, and I think that is the major flaw in your case.
Ok. It just sounded like a dodgy equivalence to me. One of those "wokeness is as big a threat as a putative fascist coup" type deals. You know what I mean. And sorry, I don't follow the logic of your 2nd point. Abortion on demand is obviously common because it only takes place when a woman asks for it. This is my point. It should be neither compulsory nor forbidden. It's the woman's decision within certain parameters. As we have it here. I think our law is about right - ie some limits but closer to no limits than to prohibition. The grisly Texas variation being the opposite, of course.
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.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
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.
Well, my mother rented out the house I now own on the lines your friend’s council did to the LA for a tenant.
For three years we had no access to the property. When we did finally get in, we discovered that the glass in one of the windows had been removed and replaced with a wooden board and a cat flap. No maintenance had been done, including leaking pipes in the kitchen and bathroom. The carpets had been damaged by the aforementioned cat and were no longer usable. Some items had actually been stolen, including the outside tap.
What maintenance had the council done? Fuck all. They hadn’t even done the annual gas safety checks despite assurances to the contrary, which could have technically placed my mother as the landlady in breach of the law.
What did they pay to put it right? Again fuck all. They disputed everything, refused to accept responsibility, pretended key paperwork had been provided when it hadn’t and dared us to go to court - which would have (a) taken ages and (b) given the close personal links of many councillors to judges in the county court, about as useful as explaining basic statistics to Nick Gibb.
And we had got less from the council than we would have got on the open market.
So, we were left massively out of pocket.
If the Forest of Dean District Council ever asked for my rental property they would have three choices which I would explain clearly and in advance: (1) the blank cheque to cover dilapidations plus I would retain a key and right of entry on giving notice to inspect; (2) buy the house or (3) go fuck themselves.
But actually I don’t think it will arise as I intend to sell when the current tenant moves on anyway.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
The QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle Quayside FFS.
That's not my point at all. My point is that there are 16 hospitals. Most people would only be able to think of three. The dental, children's, traansplant, genetics, and numerous walk-in facilities are classed as hospitals but won't be able to take Covid patients. So, about a fifth in this NHS Trust, of hospitals are actually what folk think of when they think "hospital". General places that do a range of serious ailments. Therefore 1500 nationwide may be true. But not useful when it comes to Covid care.
I see a Blair quote which Matt Singh retweeted about the 'cultural axis' which I thought was pretty on the ball.
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
Isn't there also an element of subcontracting policy to 'traditional voters' implied in this?
I don't think so. It is saying listen to them and do...things generally that show you are on their side, but like any group of public it will be uncoordinated and vague in its responses and demands. Specific campaigning groups are much more focused in their policy demands. The 'Red Wall' such as it even exists responds to the mood music of policy that Keir or others will seek, XR and others will put out press releases saying 'Do X, don't do Y'. The emphasis seems to be whether Keir (or indeed the governemnt) attempts its own ideas taking account of what others say, or just seems to parrot what they are told.
Modern politics is pretty much a morass for parties, stumbling about between often conflicting voter blocs and pressure groups, but from my pov Labour seems stuck in it more firmly than others. I'd say SKS's flirtation (& tbf previous Labour leaders') with the Union flag has very much a whiff of parroting what they are told, in that case by focus groups and brand consultants.
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.
At what point in time does the unborn child have rights?
If you mean at what point should it become illegal to abort, I think we have a reasonable settlement here. What do you think?
Interesting that it gives 1257 for the UK as a whole - including private hospitals.
Yes slightly less than Lilico’s implied figure of 1,500, but same ballpark. It rightly includes private hospitals because these do add to healthcare capacity of course.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
Given the QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle City Centre, then it’s certainly Greater Newcastle. And the General, yes, of course, good shout.
Had my wisdom teeth out there. And spent a few days in the Freeman with either a twisted testicle or epididymitis. Managed to avoid the R I though..
Interesting that it gives 1257 for the UK as a whole - including private hospitals.
Yes slightly less than Lilico’s implied figure of 1,500, but same ballpark. It rightly includes private hospitals because these do add to healthcare capacity of course.
Minus those without any capability to treat covid. The NHS stats I linked earlier showed about 300 hospitals or trusts (containing many hospitals) had zero covid inpatients at the peak in January.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Don't get into that! I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
The QE is about 800 yards from Newcastle Quayside FFS.
That's not my point at all. My point is that there are 16 hospitals. Most people would only be able to think of three. The dental, children's, traansplant, genetics, and numerous walk-in facilities are classed as hospitals but won't be able to take Covid patients. So, about a fifth in this NHS Trust, of hospitals are actually what folk think of when they think "hospital". General places that do a range of serious ailments. Therefore 1500 nationwide may be true. But not useful when it comes to Covid care.
Sounds about right - and if one assumes that if a covid patient is seriously ill enough to have to stay for say 10 days, and uses the 1250-oddf figure from that article Anabo found, then we get 1500 hospitalizations per day, leading to about 15000 person-days over 1250/5 hospitals, suggesting about 60 patients per hospital, which implies about half the relevant beds in each hospital (if Mr Lillico is right about that 100) are taken by covid parients. Only very rough, but on Fermi's piano tuner principle it is probably OK for order of magnitude. It is much more consistent with reports from Foxy, Scotland etc.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
I can guarantee that there are not 1,500 hospitals with Covid inpatients.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
We’ve had this debate before. That figure is based on the only published number. If people have alternative data, they are welcome to present it!
Indeed we have. It all comes down to what a "hospital" is. Ask folk how many hospitals there are in the Greater Newcastle area, they will be able to name 3. The RVI, Freeman and Cramlington. They are what are commonly understood to be hospitals. In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
I can already instantly name a major fourth: the QE!
Depends what you mean by 'the Greater Newcastle area'. But, putting that aside, Newcastle General.
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.
I think this misunderstand John's question? As I understand it:
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on. 2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance. 3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest? b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
The “no top up provision” is because of the insane concept of equality that the payers have. It’s the same with NHS - either you are all NHS (ie you don’t get to pay extra for a new medicine prior to NICE review regardless of whether it is approved) or you are all private (you can have the medicine but the NHS will charge you for everything else as well). Apparently topping up encouraged rich people to use state provided services that they have contributed to through taxation.
Under the gov't plans, which would see a contribution if your assets are between £26k and £86k - it must be a top up system, or a contribution system which is a top up when looked at upside down.
Hopefully it will allow you to top it up. The current system appears to discriminate against those who are not wealthy, but have saved enough money for their retirement and would like to spend some of it to better themselves.
Having said that, if I accept I'm not going to pass it on, I could fund myself for a few years.
Comments
It has flaws and unfairness but from next April NI will rise by 1.25% and then in April 23 and April 24, just before the election, it will actually be shown on pay slips as a hypothecated tax for the NHS and social care
Any proposals put forward by Starmer, or anyone else, will not be able to be acted on before the next GE and there will be so many moving parts by then that the prediction for that GE outcome is unpredictable.
While polls are interesting, especially crossover ones that occur so dramatically, waiting for each and every poll may be fun but they are totally unable at this stage to predict GE24
First they introduced a licensing regime which made some rental investments which would increase living density per house difficult / expensive. Things like deciding that 3 singles sharing (like Friends) a house made it an HMO.
Then they found they had nowhere for their young, single workforce, to live.
So they ended up lobbying Govt to allow land to be released from other councils for them to build on.
Led by Donkeys. And turnips.
Next, how to find a care home where the activities coordinator organises suitable activities, such as trips to beer festivals.
The money has to be found and many billions more to be honest
It is all about thinking ahead a long way.
In my rental renovations, for example, I pre-install underfloor ducts with drawstring to possible media areas (where I put extra sockets) because I don't want a hairy-arsed gorilla from Sky or Virgin drilling holes through everything and wrecking my brilliant insulation to save 4 minutes.
If the parties were somehow both to flip position on this issue, and this issue alone, I think we would see a substantial chunk of American voters flipping with them.
1. If you have savings above a minimum level the council pay nothing and you fund the home yourself, at £1000/week or so. You can retain your OAP and so on.
2. If after a while your savings drop below that level, the council will pay for the cheapest available local care home. In return they will take all your OAP except for a minimal weekly pocket money allowance.
3. Your friends and relatives, but NOT you, are allowed to top that up to help you go to the country house option (I've not understood why you can't, but perhaps it's felt you shouldn't feel pressured to give up your limited remaining savings).
The package announced by Johnson will supposedly tweak some of this when and if it eventually happens, limiting your total payments to £86,000 (after which I presume you switch from 1 to 2) and between £20K and £86K making a contribution. But two things I'm not sure about (and am not sure Johnson is either):
a) The co-payments of undisclosed size between £20K and £86K - will they be regardless of what decisions you've made about which home, or only if you choose the cheapest?
b) When you hit the £86K limit, do you move to category 2, and are you still not allowed to top it up yourself? Because if so, you will be a wealthy resident of a wee-smelling sink care home.
Worth remembering that only I think 10% of us do end up in care homes. But in any case definitely get professional advice.
I guess I'm supporting Starmer's view that where possible, people who want to should be enabled to stay in their own home as long as possible. Everybody's different, of course, and that wouldn't suit some.
Old railway land is great for green corridors once the tracks have been removed..
You do need to find one that, at least at the time, has a mixed clientele, remembering that women tend to live longer than men.
I recall visiting, for professional purposes a care home where, in the medicines area I found a cupboard full of half to one-third full bottles of spirits, plus a few mixers. Apparently the residents had a party every Friday night!
That was quite a long time ago; not sure I'd be able to find it again.
However one cuts it, the problem is too many people, not enough houses. One can tinker at the margins, but unless someone has a plan to get rid of lots of people, the only solution is to build more houses, and the main roadblock to that is planning.
1,500 hospitalizations per day is absolutely nowhere near overwhelming the NHS. Not even a little bit close. That's only one hospitalization per day per hospital, with each hospital averaging ~100 beds. Just a ridiculous number to suggest.
There has been some release, I think.
I think one basic issue was the dogmatic cockup of rental regulation. Not sure if that has been remedied. Imo that would be where to start.
When I last looked (years ago) they were one of a few Councils trying quite aggressively to get students out of rentals into institutions.
That would be an average of more than two hospitals per Westminster constituency, which is clearly absurd.
Why can't people do even the simplest of sense checks when it comes to numbers?
If your argument was sound then of course in a liberal, free contraception society in which most men are not rapists abortion on demand would be reasonably uncommon but by no means unknown, and I think that is the major flaw in your case.
Us oldies will do everything and anything possible to stay in our homes but we cannot prevent ageing and it may well become inevitable
It is not a policy when it already happens and is driven by human nature
Also no doubt such places as this cause confusion -
https://www.sttiggywinkles.org.uk/
Ridiculous if you can't top the state provision up yourself. It's my money and I should be able to spend it as I wish. And as I have no kids, while it would be nice to leave more money to younger family members, it's not an imperative.
Presumably I wouldn't get away with a direct debit to a trusted friend who would then redirect it to the care home...
As you say, worth taking advice and planning for.
To be serious, it would make the difference between me planning positively for the last part of my life, and feeling that I had no option but to open my veins in a warm bath.
Peston was mentioning 1500 - 5000 hospitalisations per day back in June:
https://twitter.com/peston/status/1416712271586279426?lang=en-gb
And the Indy going on about how 1500 a day would overwhelm the NHS, possibly by mid-November:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/covid-lockdown-hospital-latest-restriction-b1917301.html?r=55711
Is the latter what Lillico is answering?
I think it's one reason Tony embarked on the "masochism strategy" of agreeing to debate virulently hostile people on TV. He didn't see it as masochism, but an opportunity to deploy his skills.
COVID patients are of course concentrated at a small fraction of the UK's total number of hospitals.
One of the two things that are likely to make me worried that the NHS is about to be overwhelmed is bogus arguments that it isn't from people who are evidently innumerate.
There are three Westminster constituencies in Stoke. Is it really credible that there are seven hospitals in Stoke caring for Covid inpatients? Can you honestly tell me that bears any relation to reality?
Incidentally, that was what did for my father. He retired, they moved, and he got into gardening, complex arrangements of flower beds, pathways and so on, and after a while it got too much for him.
But you're right that your costs in the care home will be minimal.
In fact there are 16. But most folk would never have cause to go near most of them.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/urgent-emergency-care/urgent-and-emergency-care-mythbusters
That would be a much more credible figure to use as a basis for such a calculation.
And Nice vs Not Nice isn't always a question of money. All that glitters is not gold. There were one or two very fancy looking places that I inspected that seemed soulless.
https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
'Six men arrested in £160m cocaine haul off Plymouth coast'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-58528515
[Blair] urged Sir Keir Starmer not to be defensive on cultural matters. "Keir will be smart enough not to engage in the culture war, but I don't think that's going to be enough for that vote[traditional voters], they're going to want him to engage on the right side of it. And that is not, by the way, 'We don't care about black lives', it's 'We can support the sentiment of these movements, but we're not subcontracting policy to them'. So whether it's Black Lives Matter, Extinction Rebellion, MeToo, trans rights, if you look as if you're in a negotiation with those groups over policy, you're not going to get those people back."
I've often felt there is a common tendency, not confined to the left but sometimes it feels particularly so, to go 'If X say Y about issue Z, that's that', so treating campaigning groups, whose agenda may be good, as the sole voice for a community or only important voice on a particular issue. Interestingly Stonewall felt until recently like one of those groups that it was not felt ok to criticise or pay obeisance to, but in the last few years that seems to have changed.
But regardless of the group, even if their views should be sought and carry a lot of weight for policy makers, we should always avoid subcontracting our views to another completely. Hence why it's normal for people to naturally incline to support things proposed by their own party, but they should never just mouth whatever it decides.
I'm using Newcastle NHS Trust statistics. One of the 16 is in Cumbria. None in Gateshead.
1. Fund it all yourself
2. Let the council fund it, using all but a minimum amount of your pensions to help them fund it.
In case 2, friends and relatives, but not you, can top it up.
I agree that there isn't a direct correlation between "nice" and "more expensive".
https://www.interweavetextiles.com/how-many-hospitals-uk/
https://hogeweyk.dementiavillage.com/
My Mother in Law died last week, which may be part of my gloomy mood. She had been in residential care, self funded from the sale of her bungalow. She had been widowed a couple of years and could no longer manage on her own between physical frailty, mostly arthritis, and getting rather amiably muddled.
She rather enjoyed the company, being cooked for and did lots of arts and crafts as well as activities such as poetry readings. She didn't have a bad few years at all, except for covid restrictions, and the home managed those as well as they could. It cost about £80 000 in all, so wouldn't have been affected by the recent announced plans, which in any case don't start for 2 years or cover accommodation or food. She has an estate of a little less than the same sum.
She was a lovely lady and will be much missed, and enjoyable company to nearly the end. RIP
For three years we had no access to the property. When we did finally get in, we discovered that the glass in one of the windows had been removed and replaced with a wooden board and a cat flap. No maintenance had been done, including leaking pipes in the kitchen and bathroom. The carpets had been damaged by the aforementioned cat and were no longer usable. Some items had actually been stolen, including the outside tap.
What maintenance had the council done? Fuck all. They hadn’t even done the annual gas safety checks despite assurances to the contrary, which could have technically placed my mother as the landlady in breach of the law.
What did they pay to put it right? Again fuck all. They disputed everything, refused to accept responsibility, pretended key paperwork had been provided when it hadn’t and dared us to go to court - which would have (a) taken ages and (b) given the close personal links of many councillors to judges in the county court, about as useful as explaining basic statistics to Nick Gibb.
And we had got less from the council than we would have got on the open market.
So, we were left massively out of pocket.
If the Forest of Dean District Council ever asked for my rental property they would have three choices which I would explain clearly and in advance: (1) the blank cheque to cover dilapidations plus I would retain a key and right of entry on giving notice to inspect; (2) buy the house or (3) go fuck themselves.
But actually I don’t think it will arise as I intend to sell when the current tenant moves on anyway.
So, about a fifth in this NHS Trust, of hospitals are actually what folk think of when they think "hospital". General places that do a range of serious ailments.
Therefore 1500 nationwide may be true. But not useful when it comes to Covid care.
https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/newcastle-general-hospital-pictures-inside-16274818
Maybe the PM could visit, put on a lab coat, turn the sign around, and declare his 41st new hospital open?
"I believe that to take the life of an unborn child is morally wrong and I'd think ill of anybody involved in such an enterprise."
"Abortion should be illegal."
These are very different positions. The 1st is a statement of your views. The 2nd is imposing your views on everybody else.
The French must spend a small fortune on policing the constant demonstrations they have.
Having said that, if I accept I'm not going to pass it on, I could fund myself for a few years.