politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Leader of Surrey County Council – The Unlikeliest Revoluti

dr_spyn said:

If Corbyn's relaunch was a success, I wonder how John McDonnell judges failure.

Corbyn is still in post. That is their measure of success

Casino_Royale said:

But, if the claim had been £100m/week - a realistic and credible promise - that would have had no less electoral impact because to most people it is still a very large number. The reason Leave kept it at £350m is because it was just ambiguous enough to keep a debate going, and all the Remain complaints about it played straight into their hands (do Remain still not realise this?) in forcing the debate onto their ground, and massively raising its salience in the media.

This is absolutely true and Remain did themselves up like Kippers.

I'd have countered by contrasting the EU's budget of 1% of GDP with the US federal government at 22% of GDP and the UK at 43% of GDP and asked people to judge where the real savings could be made.

tpfkar said:

N.B. Technical note on Localism Act 2011 - the referendum will be first Thursday in May, and council must draw up 2 budgets, one with the increase, and a 'fall-back' for if the referendum is lost. As the council year starts before the referendum I assume that the higher budget is applied until the referendum (for about 5 weeks) and then switched to the fall-back if the referendum is lost, but not sure on that point. Can any experts clarify?

My dad says that on the Daily Politics they said the 15% will come into force before the referendum.

stodge said:

That hasn't stopped central Government throwing functions such as public health at local authorities without any resources and then making capital out of "reducing the size of Government" while leaving the Councils high and dry.

There's also the multiplier impact. If I remember correctly, local rates raise about 11% of local authority spending, the rest is from central government. If central government cuts funding by 1%, it's a 10% cut for the local authority. Hope I've got this right, I'm relying on an old memory.

https://twitter.com/PollingDigest/status/822021416312782849

Anyone seen the details to check this out?

tlg86 said:

I talked about this a few threads back, but I think I'll say it again as it is on topic.

When I was five my grandmother was diagnosed with Alzheimer's (though I suspect she'd had it for a lot longer than that). For a time my dad moved in with her to look after her but this wasn't a long term solution. Woking Borough Council gleefully told us to sell her house and give them the money to look after her. Rather than do that, my parents decided to sell her house and we bought a bigger property that we could all live in (this involved me moving school, which I didn't like). My mum had been a nurse and then a child minder after having my sister and then me. She stopped doing the latter to care for my grandmother.

To be fair she did get some help between 1994 and 1997 (when my grandmother succumbed to pneumonia). This included my grandmother being taken to a day centre two days a week. She was also invited to the Alzheimer Society's local centre but was expelled after one visit having behaved very badly. Sometimes I think the do gooders in this world live on a different planet.

Anyway, my parents are now 70 and 68 and it's getting to the stage where I think they live with me rather than the other way round. I know that one day one or both may need caring for and my sister and I probably won't be in a position to provide it so we'll have to pay. What the experience of my grandmother taught me is basically, if you own a home, you have to sell it to pay for care. That was 25 years ago, and I can't believe much has changed.

So that brings me to this referendum. I went out for dinner with my parents, sister and brother-in-law last week and we were all of the view that we could vote for this increase in tax and we'd still have to pay for my parents' care. Furthermore, I have to correct Stodge. It isn't just "a tax rise to fund extra care for the elderly and vulnerable adults." It also covers children's services. That sounds like adequate scope to spend it on a lot of other stuff. With the exception of the TV tax, we don't do hypothecation in this country. And I don't expect this to be any different.

For what it's worth, my friends on Facebook - who are very much to the left (of me, anyway) - are all opposed to this. The fact that Mr Hodge is earning more from being leader of SCC than I get paid for doing my job in Central London is not good. I know that in the grand scheme of things the amount councillors claim in expenses is not very much, but the optics of it are dreadful.

Currently, the Tories hold 58 of the 81 seats on Surrey County Council. They've had control of the council since 1997, but I could see 4 May being a terrrrrrrrrrible night for the Tories in Surrey.

Thanks for sharing your experience. Very interesting.

Would you prefer for adult social care to be funded centrally?
Or not at all?

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/823486741592080385

SeanT said:

So Cameron knew he had tried to get this changed, and he KNEW he had lost and the ECJ had knocked him back, and yet, despite that, he got up on live TV, during the campaign, and claimed that he'd won the argument, and he'd won the right to expel jobseekers.

That's fucking poisonous post-truth politics, right there.

Certainly it's PR-driven, 'narrative' based politics that bears no relation to identifying and tackling the real issues.

Having the legal right to expel EU citizens who are jobless and not able to be a (direct) burden on the state was never that important. The ECJ's ruling just means we couldn't forcibly deport people, but in practice there's nothing to stop us giving them a one way Ryanair ticket back to Bulgaria or Romania

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/ladpolitics/status/823486741592080385

Not one that immediately tempts to be perfectly honest, I think Labour are more likely to hold both than lose both.

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

geoffw said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

He has emerged from the Brexit referendum as biggest liar

*cough*Bollocks*cough*

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1

I think a lie has to be about a fact, i.e. the past. This is about the future, so though it could be deceitful in intent, it is not a lie.

The lie was that 'the EU takes £350m every week'. The NHS part doesn't come into it.

That's not a lie. It is the gross figure.
The sum of £350m a week is based on the Treasury’s estimation of the gross amount the UK contributed to the EU last year, which was £17.8bn, or £342m a week. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

That's before taking account of the rebate which never leaves the UK.

tlg86 said:

tpfkar said:

N.B. Technical note on Localism Act 2011 - the referendum will be first Thursday in May, and council must draw up 2 budgets, one with the increase, and a 'fall-back' for if the referendum is lost. As the council year starts before the referendum I assume that the higher budget is applied until the referendum (for about 5 weeks) and then switched to the fall-back if the referendum is lost, but not sure on that point. Can any experts clarify?

My dad says that on the Daily Politics they said the 15% will come into force before the referendum.

Legally the County Council has to set a budget for the financial year beginning 1/4/17. I've not heard Hodge or any of the Surrey Conservative leadership explain what they do if the vote is lost.

SeanT said:

rkrkrk said:

SeanT said:

Scott_P said:

geoffw said:

I think a lie has to be about a fact, i.e. the past. This is about the future, so though it could be deceitful in intent, it is not a lie.

"£350m the EU takes every week" is a flat lie

You want a big fat lie from David Cameron, during the Remain campaign?

Try this. He claimed:

"EU jobseekers have to leave the UK if they can't find work after six months"

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36449974

The BBC is helpfully vague towards Cameron, and can't decide if it is a lie or not. But it is a lie.

See here. There was an ECJ ruling on exactly this in 2015

"However, the ECJ warned that it would be illegal for governments to go beyond this and automatically expel legitimate jobseekers after a set period, saying this would contravene their legal rights."

https://www.ft.com/content/0379858e-5b96-11e5-9846-de406ccb37f2

Cameron lied. Remain lied. The EU is a big fat lie. You're lying now. You're just a bunch of liars. And losers.

I dont have an FT subscription... And this is all old history a bit...
But this says:

"Where an EU citizen has not yet worked in the country –
or where the period of six months has elapsed – a jobseeker cannot be expelled from the member state for as long as they can provide evidence that they are continuing to seek employment, and that they have a genuine chance of getting a job. However, in these circumstances, a worker may not be entitled to receive social assistance, the court said."

http://www.duncanlewis.co.uk/immigration_news/ECJ_rules_member_states_can_deny_benefits_to_outofwork_EU_migrants__(17_September_2015).html

So seems to be that job seeker must prove they have genuine chance of getting a job?
I don't know how that is determined but presumably six months of failing to get a job is evidence suggesting they don't have a genuine chance?

Cameron said, baldly, on national TV, during the campaign, "after six month, if you haven't got a job, you have to leave"

Just that. That's the quote. That's what he said. To the nation. No job - you gotta go. No ifs or buts, no caveats, no waffle about genuinely seeking employment. So even on the most generous interpretation (from Cameron's perspective) of the law, and ignoring his lost case at the ECJ, he was lying.

And he knew it.

Yes I think you're right... It's still a lie even with the extra info that people could be deported if x and y conditions are met.

SeanT said:

williamglenn said:

SeanT said:

So Cameron knew he had tried to get this changed, and he KNEW he had lost and the ECJ had knocked him back, and yet, despite that, he got up on live TV, during the campaign, and claimed that he'd won the argument, and he'd won the right to expel jobseekers.

That's fucking poisonous post-truth politics, right there.

Certainly it's PR-driven, 'narrative' based politics that bears no relation to identifying and tackling the real issues.

Having the legal right to expel EU citizens who are jobless and not able to be a (direct) burden on the state was never that important. The ECJ's ruling just means we couldn't forcibly deport people, but in practice there's nothing to stop us giving them a one way Ryanair ticket back to Bulgaria or Romania

1. Yes, Cameron lied

2. WTF are you on about? Under ECJ we can't just deport Bulgarians on Ryanair. That's the point. Or have I missed some massive new EU Treaty since I've been in Bangkok?

1. I'm not going to defend Cameron.

2. We can't forcibly deport them but we can assist them to voluntarily deport themselves if their presence bothers us that much.

Imagine a referendum - national or local - which demanded that our politicians spend what they raise in taxes twice. Do you think it would carry? If not, what do you think Government debt is?

Scott_P said:

@michaelsavage: ICM/Guardian: CON lead up to 16 (+2)

CON 42 (-)
LAB 26 (-2)
UKIP 13 (+1)
LD 10 (+1)
GREEN 5 (+1)

Online poll of 2,052 adults, 20-22 Jan.

Usual mid-term collapse in popularity of governing party with soaring opposition.....

DavidL said:

Hmm....If Surrey did this is there not a risk that a lot of the "extra" money would just get clawed back from their central grant? Would the government really allow a much superior social care service in one of the richest parts of the country? Even if they would is that remotely fair to those in need of social care in, say, Liverpool?

So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. If, as expected, we vote against it, we'll be derided by the left as selfish Tories. And if we did vote in favour of it and ended up sorting out elderly care (which I'm sceptical about), then we'd be the envy of the rest of the country.

Has any opposition party - anywhere - been this far behind in the polls at this stage of the election cycle and gone on to win?

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/aiannucci/status/823208390642040832

There was the French interpreter last week who complained that Trump does not speak in coherent sentences. He constantly interrupts himself, as if conducting two or three conversations at once. As well as that, he talks like a D-list celebrity listing every brand, and name-checking random people just to say they are doing a great job. (And I'm ignoring the oil.)

DanSmith said:

Has any opposition party - anywhere - been this far behind in the polls at this stage of the election cycle and gone on to win?

I very much doubt it. Usually oppositions heading for victory are miles ahead in the polls.

Are the Tories trying in Stoke?

It's not inconceivable they could win it on 30-35% of the vote if Labour collapse and UKIP flicker out like a damp candle.

williamglenn said:

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

geoffw said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

He has emerged from the Brexit referendum as biggest liar

*cough*Bollocks*cough*

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1

I think a lie has to be about a fact, i.e. the past. This is about the future, so though it could be deceitful in intent, it is not a lie.

The lie was that 'the EU takes £350m every week'. The NHS part doesn't come into it.

That's not a lie. It is the gross figure.
The sum of £350m a week is based on the Treasury’s estimation of the gross amount the UK contributed to the EU last year, which was £17.8bn, or £342m a week. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

That's before taking account of the rebate which never leaves the UK.

Yes Ok doh! We don't have a picture of the bullion being loaded on a lorry because it's all in accounting ledgers. In the ledger that's what goes out, but it is offset by the Thatcher rebate. So what's your point?

geoffw said:

williamglenn said:

geoffw said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

He has emerged from the Brexit referendum as biggest liar

*cough*Bollocks*cough*

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1

I think a lie has to be about a fact, i.e. the past. This is about the future, so though it could be deceitful in intent, it is not a lie.

The lie was that 'the EU takes £350m every week'. The NHS part doesn't come into it.

That's not a lie. It is the gross figure.
The sum of £350m a week is based on the Treasury’s estimation of the gross amount the UK contributed to the EU last year, which was £17.8bn, or £342m a week. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2016/may/23/does-the-eu-really-cost-the-uk-350m-a-week

It's an accurate measure of our gross liability. It was misleading to suggest the lot could be given to the NHS.

DanSmith said:

Has any opposition party - anywhere - been this far behind in the polls at this stage of the election cycle and gone on to win?

Such short memories.

The Tories were sometimes 13% behind Labour in 2007 and still went on to win a general election years later and form the government less than three years later.

But Jeremy Corbyn is no David Cameron.

@CorbynFactCheck: The gap between Tories and Labour is bigger than the one between Labour and UKIP.

Ooops 69 years old.. I wish I was 60

madasafish said:

On the topic discussed - the care of the elderly. I am a 60 year old OAP with all my faculties intact (Questionable sanity aside).. and effectively operate as an unpaid carer assistant for my elderly neighbours. I put out/bring in their bins, cut their grass . collect and give medicines, give lift to hospital, cut grass,assist with shopping etc

All self organised and all unpaid.

I know a lot of similarly fit OAPs who could do similar jobs and help with the burdens of others.. but there is no organisation/recognition of the source of willing labour to do it.

A degree of organisation and very little money would I suspect produce significant results - with minimal costs - and with huge benefits in social contact for all..

That's the sort of people that we should be reading about in the new years honours list.
Not the usual collection of luvvies and civil servants.

County Councils are seeing the government grant being reduced to nothing in due course whilst the cost of adult and children services is rising towards about 80% of council tax, leaving either very little for other services or not meeting basic care needs for vulnerable elderly and children.

Care homes have provided places for councils at below full cost in order to keep up the occupancy rates. But the increased minimum wage means that the marginal cost for an extra occupant is now greater than the marginal income that councils have been paying. Care homes will now close rather than take people into care at the rates councils can afford to pay. It will become impossible for councils to place the vulnerable elderly or children into care.

In the past, people who pay privately for nursing and residential care homes have been subsidising council occupants. But care homes with higher proportions of council occupants have been cutting back on staff, resulting in a loss of private residents and gone into a downward spiral.

Surrey has made the correct logical decision that in future they have to pay commercial rates to care homes or find there are no care homes for council funded residents.

Whether Surrey council taxpayers accept the logic and pay up remains to be seen. To win the referendum the council will a need good explanation of the choices and to tell the story multiple times until the penny drops.

SeanT said:

CarlottaVance said:

Scott_P said:

@michaelsavage: ICM/Guardian: CON lead up to 16 (+2)

CON 42 (-)
LAB 26 (-2)
UKIP 13 (+1)
LD 10 (+1)
GREEN 5 (+1)

Online poll of 2,052 adults, 20-22 Jan.

Usual mid-term collapse in popularity of governing party with soaring opposition.....

If there is swingback, the Tories could hit 45 and Labour 23 at the GE. That would be the biggest defeat since forever?

Lot depends on Brexit, if May gets most of what she wants (which she will) then she will get a huge bounce in the polls, an immediate election in those circumstances could be messy for Labour.

DecrepitJohnL said:

Scott_P said:

https://twitter.com/aiannucci/status/823208390642040832

There was the French interpreter last week who complained that Trump does not speak in coherent sentences. He constantly interrupts himself, as if conducting two or three conversations at once. As well as that, he talks like a D-list celebrity listing every brand, and name-checking random people just to say they are doing a great job. (And I'm ignoring the oil.)

I wonder if he thinks the same way as he speaks? Does he jump from random topic to random topic interrupting himself in his head? It must be vaguely dreamlike.

It must make it difficult to think strategically and cogently. Maybe he has to keep things internally simple to cope. And the external ambiguity of his utterances keeps the opposition guessing. Could be a winning combination. Or not.

EDIT On reflection it is obviously a winning combination. He is President FFS!

madasafish said:

Ooops 69 years old.. I wish I was 60

DavidL said:

The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours. It is a consequence of the self absorption of the age.

I don't think that's fair - although I don't disagree about the epidemic of self absorption.

People choosing to work full time - getting paid a higher wage to use their specialist skills - and then paying their taxes to someone else to do the fairly low skill caring stuff - is a consequence of rational economics.

It's a good thing.

Jamie Reed has succeeded Stephen Phillips as Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stewards_of_the_Manor_of_Northstead#2000_to_present

Tristram Hunt has succeeded Frank Goldsmith as Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of the Chiltern Hundreds:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Stewards_of_the_Chiltern_Hundreds#2000_to_present

Pong said:

DavidL said:

The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours. It is a consequence of the self absorption of the age.

I don't think that's fair - although I don't disagree about the epidemic of self absorption.

People choosing to work full time - getting paid a higher wage to use their specialist skills - and then paying their taxes to someone else to do the fairly low skill caring stuff - is a consequence of rational economics.

It's a good thing.

Hmm .. My experience is there are a lot of people working who are quite well off, and have not the time to look after their aged relatives.
That is fine.. but they also refuse to pay for care.
In my view that is almost half of the problem.

The poor cannot afford to pay for care - fine. Often they are unfit to help.
The richer have the money to pay but will not - but inherit property etc eventually..

Hertsmere_Pubgoer said:

madasafish said:

On the topic discussed - the care of the elderly. I am a 60 year old OAP with all my faculties intact (Questionable sanity aside).. and effectively operate as an unpaid carer assistant for my elderly neighbours. I put out/bring in their bins, cut their grass . collect and give medicines, give lift to hospital, cut grass,assist with shopping etc

All self organised and all unpaid.

I know a lot of similarly fit OAPs who could do similar jobs and help with the burdens of others.. but there is no organisation/recognition of the source of willing labour to do it.

A degree of organisation and very little money would I suspect produce significant results - with minimal costs - and with huge benefits in social contact for all..

That's the sort of people that we should be reading about in the new years honours list.
Not the usual collection of luvvies and civil servants.

Agreed.

Mortimer said:

surbiton said:

OldKingCole said:

surbiton said:

CarlottaVance said:

Twitter reaction was hostile but that can hardly be viewed as reliable.

Understatement of the year, not only in general, but specifically the people who vote are more likely to be the ones approaching needs for social care.....

I am reaching the pension age myself. But Pensioners are selfish. They want more services as long others pay for them.

Well, I’m well past pension age, and TBH, I’m not sure about this. I’m not rich but I’m reasonably comfortable. I don’t mind giving up my free TV or having my winter fuel allowance taxed. I’m even prepared to pay something for my bus pass....... don’t know how much....... prepared to negotiate, or even pay more income tax, but I do feel that putting extra on the rates is a blunderbuss way of doing things.
I’m with Corbyn; this is a national issue and should be dealt with nationally. Many Surrey Council Tax payers can unquestionably afford it; many cannot.

I am not disagreeing with you. This is a National crisis. And, we are talking about Corporation Tax cuts ?

I agree with you on this.

Corp tax cuts are politically unpalatable and fiscally unnecessary.

Reintroduce the difference between small business corp tax rate and big business corp tax rate. Would really help those unfortunate small businesses hit by rate hikes in the south of England.

Surely, for tax purposes, it is better to differentiate between companies on the size of their profits rather than their size by turnover or number of employees?

SeanT said:

If we did adopt such a ludicrous policy of taxpayer funded voluntary deportation (try selling that to the ECJ, the Guardian, the BBC, and the UK taxpayer), Bulgarians and Romanians would just take the tickets, fly home on holiday, then come back on the bus. Brilliant.

And the government would have spun that as a success.

Dave: "Thousands of unemployed Romanians and Bulgarians have returned to their homes due to our new scheme."

madasafish said:

Pong said:

DavidL said:

The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours. It is a consequence of the self absorption of the age.

I don't think that's fair - although I don't disagree about the epidemic of self absorption.

People choosing to work full time - getting paid a higher wage to use their specialist skills - and then paying their taxes to someone else to do the fairly low skill caring stuff - is a consequence of rational economics.

It's a good thing.

Hmm .. My experience is there are a lot of people working who are quite well off, and have not the time to look after their aged relatives.
That is fine.. but they also refuse to pay for care.
In my view that is almost half of the problem.

The poor cannot afford to pay for care - fine. Often they are unfit to help.
The richer have the money to pay but will not - but inherit property etc eventually..

Thgere’s looking after, and there’s looking after. No way could either we or my bro-in-law and wife looked after our in-laws. Looking after an Alzheimers patient or someone with a massive stroke requires training and support. One of the aspects of that support is the ‘break’; caring like that is extremely wearing. I’ve know people do it for their wives and husbands, but it’s driven them into the ground.

Apologies - still haven't found the fresh ICM tables.

OldKingCole said:

madasafish said:

Pong said:

DavidL said:

The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours. It is a consequence of the self absorption of the age.

I don't think that's fair - although I don't disagree about the epidemic of self absorption.

People choosing to work full time - getting paid a higher wage to use their specialist skills - and then paying their taxes to someone else to do the fairly low skill caring stuff - is a consequence of rational economics.

It's a good thing.

Hmm .. My experience is there are a lot of people working who are quite well off, and have not the time to look after their aged relatives.
That is fine.. but they also refuse to pay for care.
In my view that is almost half of the problem.

The poor cannot afford to pay for care - fine. Often they are unfit to help.
The richer have the money to pay but will not - but inherit property etc eventually..

Thgere’s looking after, and there’s looking after. No way could either we or my bro-in-law and wife looked after our in-laws. Looking after an Alzheimers patient or someone with a massive stroke requires training and support. One of the aspects of that support is the ‘break’; caring like that is extremely wearing. I’ve know people do it for their wives and husbands, but it’s driven them into the ground.

We looked after my MIL at home - fortunately she was fit and required little extra work until she died at 92.

My father had dementia and his estate paid for care for 6 years until he died - with some state support

glw said:

SeanT said:

If we did adopt such a ludicrous policy of taxpayer funded voluntary deportation (try selling that to the ECJ, the Guardian, the BBC, and the UK taxpayer), Bulgarians and Romanians would just take the tickets, fly home on holiday, then come back on the bus. Brilliant.

And the government would have spun that as a success.

Dave: "Thousands of unemployed Romanians and Bulgarians have returned to their homes due to our new scheme."

Sarkozy managed it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_Roma_migrants_from_France

SeanT said:

tpfkar said:

Casino_Royale said:

Scott_P said:

isam said:

He has emerged from the Brexit referendum as biggest liar

*cough*Bollocks*cough*

https://twitter.com/MichaelPDeacon/status/747000584226607104/photo/1

If I were a moderator of this site, I'd introduce a fine system for every time you post that.

Why? It shows that our foreign secretary who campaigned for the biggest change in the UK in a generation is a lying liar who won the campaign by lying. Post it more Scott!

I refer you to my comment about Cameron and his TOTAL lie about EU jobseekers.

It is actually quite astonishing that he got away with that. And it is far far worse than the bollocks about £350m for the NHS, which at least has a grain of truth, and is an aspiration rather than a statement of the case.

Cameron knew he'd lost that ECJ case. Yet he got up and flat-out lied about it, and said you HAD to leave the UK if you didn't have a job.

Wrong audience Sean. Why would I want to defend Cameron or that godawful Remain campaign?

There's no grain of truth whatsoever in the £350m for the NHS claim. It is a lie and it has always been a lie. And as the winners they are the ones accountable.

madasafish said:

OldKingCole said:

madasafish said:

Pong said:

DavidL said:

The truth is that too many of us think looking after granny is the State's problem not ours. It is a consequence of the self absorption of the age.

I don't think that's fair - although I don't disagree about the epidemic of self absorption.

People choosing to work full time - getting paid a higher wage to use their specialist skills - and then paying their taxes to someone else to do the fairly low skill caring stuff - is a consequence of rational economics.

It's a good thing.

Hmm .. My experience is there are a lot of people working who are quite well off, and have not the time to look after their aged relatives.
That is fine.. but they also refuse to pay for care.
In my view that is almost half of the problem.

The poor cannot afford to pay for care - fine. Often they are unfit to help.
The richer have the money to pay but will not - but inherit property etc eventually..

Thgere’s looking after, and there’s looking after. No way could either we or my bro-in-law and wife looked after our in-laws. Looking after an Alzheimers patient or someone with a massive stroke requires training and support. One of the aspects of that support is the ‘break’; caring like that is extremely wearing. I’ve know people do it for their wives and husbands, but it’s driven them into the ground.

We looked after my MIL at home - fortunately she was fit and required little extra work until she died at 92.

My father had dementia and his estate paid for care for 6 years until he died - with some state support

Granny flats and the like are going to become (even) more common. I suspect my younger son has designed his house so that one or other of us could live there if necessary.

@heraldscotland: MSPs will get vote on triggering of Article 50, @NicolaSturgeon says heraldscotland.com/politics/refer…

This will be followed by a vote on the hunting of unicorns, and porcine air traffic control...

Deleted - using old tables.... Sorry!

https://twitter.com/cjterry/status/823499122527338497

TheScreamingEagles said:

Hmmm, did Theresa May effectively mislead parliament?

https://twitter.com/rowenamason/status/823498710214643712

I really think one test failure out of very many successes was not relevant to the debate. It won't resonate with the public even if MPs get worked up about it.

I bought some of SeanT's latest wine recommendation. Better stock up quick?

https://twitter.com/bpolitics/status/823500045869875201

Great read on how to deal with liars:

http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2017/01/shouting-liar-at-trump-is-worse-than-useless.html

Hint.....not what's currently being done.....

EU > WTO

https://blogs.fco.gov.uk/julianbraithwaite/2017/01/23/ensuring-a-smooth-transition-in-the-wto-as-we-leave-the-eu/

I've recently had a crash course in the challenges of caring. After my other half's accident, he needed a lot of looking after initially. Fortunately, as he has made a good recovery he has been able to do more for himself but in the early months I was running myself into the ground trying to juggle my work and my home responsibilities.

The best care will mostly be delivered by nearest and dearest. However, the financial hit of reducing or stopping work will make that impractical for many as things currently stand (my own firm has been magnificent in its support of me). For the most effective and cost effective social care, we need to offer much more financial support for carers.