Grauniad take on Mayism - conclusion of manifesto:
Because Conservatism is not and never has been the philosophy described by caricaturists. We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality. We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.
True Conservatism means a commitment to country and community; a belief not just in society but in the good that government can do; a respect for the local and national institutions that bind us together; an insight that change is inevitable and change can be good, but that change should be shaped, through strong leadership and clear principles, for the common good.
We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals. We know that we all have obligations to one another, because that is what community and nation demands. We understand that nobody, however powerful, has succeeded alone and that we all therefore have a debt to others. We respect the fact that society is a contract between the generations: a partnership between those who are living, those who have lived before us, and those who are yet to be born.
Stephen BushVerified account @stephenkb 1h1 hour ago More Neat use of advertising 3: Labour have paid for an attack ad at the top of Google when you search for the Tory or LD manifestos.
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
More people will have to pay - in future includes those receiving care in their own home.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
No as even if your parents need years of care you still get £100k tax free regardless
ok. fair point. my mistake. But still leaves the basic point. If you are lucky - good on you, the Tories will back you all the way.
I still think an insurance system would have been preferable but the fact the social care reclaim only applies above £100k coupled with the rise in the Inheritance tax threshold means that if your parents are unlucky enough to get dementia you cannot say you have been too badly done by given the money has to come from somewhere
Transparent attempt to win the mayoralty off a split 'progressive' vote I guess.
But they want to change the way the other new Mayoral elections are held aswell. Which is odd since they just won the tees valley and west midlands mayors on second prefrence.
I think it would look too obvious to just change London. And the London mayoralty is probably the most prestigious prize (although I think other Mayors actually have relatively more power than Khan).
Maybe I'm being too cynical - even under FPTP the Tories will struggle in London without a Boris, so perhaps the change is for another reason. Seems completely out of the blue either way.
I think it is a bit of cleaning house, just like the repeal of the FTPA. Trialing different electoral systems through the devolutions implemented in the late 90s onwards was done with an eye on ultimately changing Westminster. We had a vote eventually on voting systems and voted two-to-one to keep our existing system.
Time to end the trials of multiple competing voting systems and go for one consistent one that has stood the test of time. Time to stop talking about voting systems. FPTP works there is no need for anything else.
Except with an election for a single person - such as a mayor - there is a strong argument for having a system that ensures that the person elected is the preferred candidate of a majority that voted. Having a system with some sort of transfer arrangement from eliminated candidates is the only way to achieve this.
It is the safeguard against some sort of extreme candidate being elected on a minority of the vote, because the opposition to him or her is divided.
Fair play to the Tories on at least trying to do something post Dilnot on care fees - ok it's got holes in the plans but it's something rather than the long grass that successive Govts have done with the issue....
There's not any votes to be won really (and certainly some lost) but it's good this is finally being addressed.
Yeah, I think on balance it's a pretty reasonable compromise. There are no good solutions, it's a question of balancing out overall affordability, the problem of penalising the responsible, and fairness. I think I prefer this package to the Dilnot package, which was going to cost too much and which would subsidise the very well-off too much.. The other approach, Andy Burnham's death tax where you paid £10K for your 'free' care whether you used it or not, spread the cost more evenly but was another subsidy for the children of the well-off.
I don't get the furore on this 'dementia tax' as I think rottenborough and some journos are going off on - that's EXACTLY what is going on now and has been for years. It's a horrible disease and it's also horribly expensive to self-fund as your longevity is not massively impacted. As a later life adviser I see the difference in costs between buying a care annuity for someone with dementia versus other types of ailments.
Grauniad take on Mayism - conclusion of manifesto:
Because Conservatism is not and never has been the philosophy described by caricaturists. We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism. We abhor social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality. We see rigid dogma and ideology not just as needless but dangerous.
True Conservatism means a commitment to country and community; a belief not just in society but in the good that government can do; a respect for the local and national institutions that bind us together; an insight that change is inevitable and change can be good, but that change should be shaped, through strong leadership and clear principles, for the common good.
We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals. We know that we all have obligations to one another, because that is what community and nation demands. We understand that nobody, however powerful, has succeeded alone and that we all therefore have a debt to others. We respect the fact that society is a contract between the generations: a partnership between those who are living, those who have lived before us, and those who are yet to be born.
Is there a shift in language on Brexit in the manifesto? "We will seek [...] a comprehensive free trade and customs agreement."
No. She also says the Uk will quit the customs union. This matches what she said last year and earlier this year.
Indeed it makes sense to reach a customs agreement once out of the customs union.
I think we will be leaving The EU customs unions, but we will have A customs unions with The EU post Brexit in the ideal world.
But they quote Customs Arrangements-thats not the same thing.
I think May wants a customs free deal (or union) on things like cars, aerospace and manufactured goods, with the UK having input into setting the tarrifs at an EU wide level.
She won't get it. She might be able to unilaterally agree to maintain UK alignment with whatever the EU charges on those bits and pieces, and cut out a bit of bureaucracy.
The Greens’ co-leader, Caroline Lucas, has released a statement calling the Conservatives’ plans on social care a “dementia tax”, calling the manifesto “deeply misguided.” She said:
The social care changes will hit those in need worst, shifting the cost burden onto individuals and further undermining the welfare state. The lockdown on migration isn’t just economically illiterate and bad for business, it’s cruel too.
I haven't looked into the policy itself, but 'dementia tax' seems like good coinage by Lucas, could catch on and tar the proposals much like 'bedroom tax' or 'pasty tax' did.
And how did those slogans affect the popularity of either the Cameron or the May government. People on the left live in a small echo chamber where slogans are great fun and then they lose GEs.
Transparent attempt to win the mayoralty off a split 'progressive' vote I guess.
But they want to change the way the other new Mayoral elections are held aswell. Which is odd since they just won the tees valley and west midlands mayors on second prefrence.
I think it would look too obvious to just change London. And the London mayoralty is probably the most prestigious prize (although I think other Mayors actually have relatively more power than Khan).
Maybe I'm being too cynical - even under FPTP the Tories will struggle in London without a Boris, so perhaps the change is for another reason. Seems completely out of the blue either way.
I think it is a bit of cleaning house, just like the repeal of the FTPA. Trialing different electoral systems through the devolutions implemented in the late 90s onwards was done with an eye on ultimately changing Westminster. We had a vote eventually on voting systems and voted two-to-one to keep our existing system.
Time to end the trials of multiple competing voting systems and go for one consistent one that has stood the test of time. Time to stop talking about voting systems. FPTP works there is no need for anything else.
Except with an election for a single person - such as a mayor - there is a strong argument for having a system that ensures that the person elected is the preferred candidate of a majority that voted. Having a system with some sort of transfer arrangement from eliminated candidates is the only way to achieve this.
It is the safeguard against some sort of extreme candidate being elected on a minority of the vote, because the opposition to him or her is divided.
A French-style second round run-off maybe would work, or proper AV where you rank all candidates, but the problem with this voting system is that if there is a greatly split vote as you suggested then transfers only count if people correctly guess who will make the final round. It doesn't do what it sets out to do and doesn't do what what FPTP does. It is the worst of both worlds.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
Transparent attempt to win the mayoralty off a split 'progressive' vote I guess.
But they want to change the way the other new Mayoral elections are held aswell. Which is odd since they just won the tees valley and west midlands mayors on second prefrence.
I think it would look too obvious to just change London. And the London mayoralty is probably the most prestigious prize (although I think other Mayors actually have relatively more power than Khan).
Maybe I'm being too cynical - even under FPTP the Tories will struggle in London without a Boris, so perhaps the change is for another reason. Seems completely out of the blue either way.
I think it is a bit of cleaning house, just like the repeal of the FTPA. Trialing different electoral systems through the devolutions implemented in the late 90s onwards was done with an eye on ultimately changing Westminster. We had a vote eventually on voting systems and voted two-to-one to keep our existing system.
Time to end the trials of multiple competing voting systems and go for one consistent one that has stood the test of time. Time to stop talking about voting systems. FPTP works there is no need for anything else.
Except with an election for a single person - such as a mayor - there is a strong argument for having a system that ensures that the person elected is the preferred candidate of a majority that voted. Having a system with some sort of transfer arrangement from eliminated candidates is the only way to achieve this.
It is the safeguard against some sort of extreme candidate being elected on a minority of the vote, because the opposition to him or her is divided.
A French-style second round run-off maybe would work, or proper AV where you rank all candidates, but the problem with this voting system is that if there is a greatly split vote as you suggested then transfers only count if people correctly guess who will make the final round. It doesn't do what it sets out to do and doesn't do what what FPTP does. It is the worst of both worlds.
Certainly we can agree that AV is marginally better than SV
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Can someone really clever explain what is happening to the Lib Dems? Suddenly all their voters are flocking to Corbyn??
Is this the last, desperate Remainers thinking: ooh, Labour are saying we won't leave the EU without a good deal? A possible chance to Stay?
(I thought this was a very clever move by Labour, incidentally - almost unnoticed by the press)
Or is this the lefty LDs liking lots of Labour's manifesto?
I can't. I've had friends who are ultra-Remain who've moved to the Greens over recent days because of his pledge for a 2nd referendum.
I don't understand it. Their only answer was that Farron was a "dick".
How many people in the country are ultra-Remain, but also aren't sure if they think gay sex is sinful??
Given the kind of voter profile the LDs were aiming at in this election, Farron in terms of his personality/background was about the worst front-man you could choose.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
The old couple should give the children half the current value of the house by means of shares in the house.
Not really, one way or the other. $1.30 is still pitifully low. The long run average is probably about $1.65 and it's less than ten years since £ touched $2.00. As I said to the guy on here who was speculating about further falls, once A50 was out of the way a climb back towards $1.40 was the more likely scenario. Not least because the US has its own troubles.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
So persuade the oldsters to top themselves. Job done.
Didn't you write a piece urging the government to give pensioners heroin?
Interesting that if you Google "Conservative Manifesto", the first thing that appears is a link to the Labour Party's view of it. I think it's the same for the Lib Dems too.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Nevertheless it is remarkable that the Tories have lifted for their care charges policy one of the aspects of the LibDems' Mansion Tax proposal to which they objected most strongly at the time - the facility for a tax or charge to be rolled up and deducted from the proceeds of someone's house when sold after their death.
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading
That's more to do with people's opinion of Blair than a policy position.
Labour haven't even tried to win over Tory voters since 2010, even if Labour get 34%, it'll be two elections in a row where the attempted coalition of liberal voters has led to a Tory majority and thus failed.
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
Not really, one way or the other. $1.30 is still pitifully low. The long run average is probably about $1.65 and it's less than ten years since £ touched $2.00. As I said to the guy on here who was speculating about further falls, once A50 was out of the way a climb back towards $1.40 was the more likely scenario. Not least because the US has its own troubles.
Taking the crazy spike out, the "steady" level is closer to $1.50 over past 10 years. So still significantly below, but it has been notching up for a few months now.
I remember visiting the US during Labour day, when it was $2 a £1, in a state with no sales tax and everything on sale because of the holiday. The woman at a clothes store thought I was completely bonkers when I basically bought a new wardrobe of new clothes...
Mr. Lennon, I appreciate that response, although I still disagree entirely.
I've got some books deliberately free or very low-priced (a 99p 100,000 word novel, an abridged free version of another book, first episode of Wandering Phoenix and Roaming Tiger is free) and try to price other stuff competitively.
A book can take years to write and then the same time to come to market. Piracy's a major problem and reducing the time money can be earnt to just 10 years really doesn't appeal at all.
It's probably just a philosophical difference as I don't think the Pirates are standing in Morley and Outwood, but it's a shame because I strongly agree with a lot of other things your party has said.
I'm with you on this one Mr Dancer. It should not be the government deciding how authors and owners of copyrighted materials market that material; that should be firmly within the author's purview alone or his or her designated agents.
Mr Lennon's view is pure nanny state - we know your interests better than you do.
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
Obviously. But there's no sign the "moderates" have any ideas about how to target the Tory vote, especially since their big idea seems to be to follow the LibDems down the "stop Brexit" rabbit-hole (cf. Blair and Mandelson's recent witterings).
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
This sounds like a differential tax on the north. More of the house value is taken by the govt. in the north than in the south.
this manifesto also marks a simply huge shift in the intergenerational politics that has underpinned much of the last decade. In place of the cast iron rule that older voters must be entirely protected from the pain that post-financial crisis Britain faced is a recognition that ‘a restored contract between the generations’ is one of the five giant challenges facing Britain – requiring older people to contribute, and be seen to contribute. Nowhere is this big political shift more apparent than in the manifesto’s proposals for social care.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
This sounds like a differential tax on the north. More of the house value is taken by the govt. in the north than in the south.
WTF, Lib Dems abandoning ship en-masse in favour of Labour? What did Tim do, I missed it?
Apparently Jezza is become wildly popular... That or yet another UK polling disaster is under-way.
Take your pick.
I am just not buying the Lib Dems on 7%....Tiny Tim is a bit crap, but there is a significant demographic of people who are liberal soft left, remain, free market types, who don't believe in nationalizing everything in sight and all the other hard left stuff Jez is proposing.
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Nevertheless it is remarkable that the Tories have lifted for their care charges policy one of the aspects of the LibDems' Mansion Tax proposal to which they objected most strongly at the time - the facility for a tax or charge to be rolled up and deducted from the proceeds of someone's house when sold after their death.
The Tories already having taken £1 million of your assets including your house out of Inheritance tax opposed by Labour and the LDs and still leaving you a minimum of £100k tax free even if your parents need years of care, the left trying to present themselves as champions of family assets is absurd
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Nevertheless it is remarkable that the Tories have lifted for their care charges policy one of the aspects of the LibDems' Mansion Tax proposal to which they objected most strongly at the time - the facility for a tax or charge to be rolled up and deducted from the proceeds of someone's house when sold after their death.
that's what's already going on when people go in to care and where the local authority rolls up the debt for those fees to be paid when the person dies and the house is then sold?
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
Wait you only have to pay £50k capped? I thought rottenbourgh said it is changing to an unlimited amount?
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
Obviously. But there's no sign the "moderates" have any ideas about how to target the Tory vote, especially since their big idea seems to be to follow the LibDems down the "stop Brexit" rabbit-hole (cf. Blair and Mandelson's recent witterings).
I'm a moderate and I think Brexit should go ahead. I voted Remain, but I respect the referendum result.
WTF, Lib Dems abandoning ship en-masse in favour of Labour? What did Tim do, I missed it?
Apparently Jezza is become wildly popular... That or yet another UK polling disaster is under-way.
Take your pick.
I am just not buying the Lib Dems on 7%....Tiny Tim is a bit crap, but there is a significant demographic of people who are liberal soft left, remain, free market types, who don't believe in nationalizing everything in sight and all the other hard left stuff Jez is proposing.
If Labour supporters in the LibDems' 30 or 40 best prospects are willing to back the LDs tactically in large numbers, this election gets interesting. It's the only way the Tories can actually lose any seats right now.
The Greens’ co-leader, Caroline Lucas, has released a statement calling the Conservatives’ plans on social care a “dementia tax”, calling the manifesto “deeply misguided.” She said:
The social care changes will hit those in need worst, shifting the cost burden onto individuals and further undermining the welfare state. The lockdown on migration isn’t just economically illiterate and bad for business, it’s cruel too.
I haven't looked into the policy itself, but 'dementia tax' seems like good coinage by Lucas, could catch on and tar the proposals much like 'bedroom tax' or 'pasty tax' did.
And how did those slogans affect the popularity of either the Cameron or the May government. People on the left live in a small echo chamber where slogans are great fun and then they lose GEs.
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
Obviously. But there's no sign the "moderates" have any ideas about how to target the Tory vote, especially since their big idea seems to be to follow the LibDems down the "stop Brexit" rabbit-hole (cf. Blair and Mandelson's recent witterings).
I'm a moderate and I think Brexit should go ahead. I voted Remain, but I respect the referendum result.
Same here. Even if 'the people' 'got it wrong' their right to 'get it wrong' (heck, they 'get it wrong' every couple of general elections...) is much more important than a 3-5% smaller economy (or not) in 15 years.....
This is a well-balanced and clearly-written article on the manifesto and especially the changes on care for the elderly by Torsten Bell of the leftish Resolution Foundation:
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
Wait you only have to pay £50k capped? I thought rottenbourgh said it is changing to an unlimited amount?
The only 'cap' is the £100k you will be left with in your property - if your house is £105,000 or £1,100,000 - you will be in for the difference - so, this will disproportionately affect the south and London.
Not really, one way or the other. $1.30 is still pitifully low. The long run average is probably about $1.65 and it's less than ten years since £ touched $2.00. As I said to the guy on here who was speculating about further falls, once A50 was out of the way a climb back towards $1.40 was the more likely scenario. Not least because the US has its own troubles.
Taking the crazy spike out, the "steady" level is closer to $1.50 over past 10 years. So still significantly below, but it has been notching up for a few months now.
I remember visiting the US during Labour day, when it was $2 a £1, in a state with no sales tax and everything on sale because of the holiday. The woman at a clothes store thought I was completely bonkers when I basically bought a new wardrobe of new clothes...
It depends on your timeframe. During my lifetime the £ has mostly been north of $1.50. The $ took a hit after the financial crisis, then rebounded once it became clear that the US was likely to be at the leading edge of rising interest rates. Whether the last ten years are exceptional, or the new normal, is a much bigger debate entirely!
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Nevertheless it is remarkable that the Tories have lifted for their care charges policy one of the aspects of the LibDems' Mansion Tax proposal to which they objected most strongly at the time - the facility for a tax or charge to be rolled up and deducted from the proceeds of someone's house when sold after their death.
Mansion tax was also Ed's policy. She really is Ed in leopard heels.
@NickPalmer ""Corbyn would be a disaster as PM" meme is running out of steam."
There's a big head of steam in a 2:1 margin...
Not really. The thing to watch is the Labour score compared with the Corbyn score - the difference is people who are voting Labour but holding their noses, and thus potentially seduceable by Tory demonisation of Corbyn. The Tory lead is all about eating UKIP (are they really down to 2%?), and there's not a lot Labour under any leader can do about that.
What critics of Corbyn can argue is that under hypothetical wonder-leader from the centre, we would be gaining votes from the left of the Tories while they snuggle up to UKIP. Whether that's true to a large extent is debatable, cf. the poll two days ago showing Labour doing much worse if Tony Blair was leading. I think we're seeing some genuine polarisation here.
But he should not have agreed to the election ! At the very least Corbyn should have forced May down the Vote of No Confidence route which quite a few constitutional commentators believe could have made him PM in a 'caretaker' capacity.
It just wasn't credible. Before Corbyn even had a chance to reply the media had moved on to election mode. It is utterly delusional to think that he could play silly buggers and be made PM in any form of capacity.
The media in its ignorance could say what it liked - though at the time of the announcement there was speculation as to Corbyn's likely response. His failure to block May effectively made the issue a non-issue but that was far from inevitable. The views of RodCrosby and David Herdson are very clost to my own regarding May being obliged to resign had she been forced down the No Confidence Vote road.
I don't get the furore on this 'dementia tax' as I think rottenborough and some journos are going off on - that's EXACTLY what is going on now and has been for years. It's a horrible disease and it's also horribly expensive to self-fund as your longevity is not massively impacted. As a later life adviser I see the difference in costs between buying a care annuity for someone with dementia versus other types of ailments.
If you suffer from Alzheimer's then you are going to end up in a specialist care home anyway, in all likelihood. In that scenario the state picks up more of the bill, not less, under these proposals, leaving your grasping relatives long-suffering loved ones with £100K, not £23K.
This is a well-balanced and clearly-written article on the manifesto and especially the changes on care for the elderly by Torsten Bell of the leftish Resolution Foundation:
The Greens’ co-leader, Caroline Lucas, has released a statement calling the Conservatives’ plans on social care a “dementia tax”, calling the manifesto “deeply misguided.” She said:
The social care changes will hit those in need worst, shifting the cost burden onto individuals and further undermining the welfare state. The lockdown on migration isn’t just economically illiterate and bad for business, it’s cruel too.
I haven't looked into the policy itself, but 'dementia tax' seems like good coinage by Lucas, could catch on and tar the proposals much like 'bedroom tax' or 'pasty tax' did.
And how did those slogans affect the popularity of either the Cameron or the May government. People on the left live in a small echo chamber where slogans are great fun and then they lose GEs.
"Poll tax" was quite effective.
Didn't put off many of the citizens of Warsaw and Gdansk from coming over to the Uk so I suggest its impact was limited.
For decades, we've been told that the declining Lab+Con share is a symptom of the electorate's wider and growing disillusionment with the political class. We must therefore infer from the upswing in Lab+Con that the British public are now pretty satisfied with their politicians.
Labour appear to be closing in on their best vote share in England since 2001. The world doesn't make sense any more.
Plato did us the favour of at least flagging that there were people beyond the PB circle who found Trump immensely appealing. Whoever is the equivalent of Plato for Corbyn has yet to sign up?
I'm at work so can't really look at the manifesto in detail. Are the left wing policies actually left wing or are they skin deep policies designed to sound left while not achieving very much?
Reducing greatly the amount people leave as an inheritance is definently left wing. Many more people will now have to pay social care charges.
How is it being reduced? I've missed that, all I've seen is a more than quadrupling from £23,000 to £100,000 that which can be passed on.
ATM the house is not taken into account for anyone receiving Social Care at Home.
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
Key words 'at home' if you are in a care home you have to pay all your costs down to last £23k now you get to keep £77k more
Nevertheless it is remarkable that the Tories have lifted for their care charges policy one of the aspects of the LibDems' Mansion Tax proposal to which they objected most strongly at the time - the facility for a tax or charge to be rolled up and deducted from the proceeds of someone's house when sold after their death.
Mansion tax was also Ed's policy. She really is Ed in leopard heels.
Poor Ed. I wonder what he must feel after being called 'Red Ed' by the Tories and right leaning media?
For decades, we've been told that the declining Lab+Con share is a symptom of the electorate's wider and growing disillusionment with the political class. We must therefore infer from the upswing in Lab+Con that the British public are now pretty satisfied with their politicians.
The mainfesto commits to 3% of GDP on research and development and the minimum/living wage to be reach 60% of median earnings by 2020. I'm not sure by I believe that's more generous than the existing scheme.
There's a pledge not to raise VAT and to honour previous commitments on personal tax allowances and corporation tax.
On Brexit, we will cut and paste EU WTO schedules to begin with and 'grandfather' existing FTAs with third parties.
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
Obviously. But there's no sign the "moderates" have any ideas about how to target the Tory vote, especially since their big idea seems to be to follow the LibDems down the "stop Brexit" rabbit-hole (cf. Blair and Mandelson's recent witterings).
I'm a moderate and I think Brexit should go ahead. I voted Remain, but I respect the referendum result.
Same here. Even if 'the people' 'got it wrong' their right to 'get it wrong' (heck, they 'get it wrong' every couple of general elections...) is much more important than a 3-5% smaller economy (or not) in 15 years.....
I think Brexit has to go ahead. But I still think it was the wrong decision. It's possible to hold both views. That does not mean that Brexit is the mood of the nation – the nation is split on whether it was a good decision or a bad one.
Ok, I'm putting this out now. I predict the social care changes will either be a) a f***** disaster for the Tories when the full extend of what's proposes dawns on people or b) will not survive contact with backbenchers as a Bill.
The main reason being they have abandoned the total lifetime cap on charges.
So:
* If you are lucky and don't need social care - your kids win up to a £1m house - tax free.
* If you are unlucky and need several years of care at maybe £1000 a week. Your kids get zilch.
This is poll tax on zimmer frame wheels level of policy.
Most people do not expect to inherit houses worth a million, because most people do not live in London or the SE.
As I said, this is a manifesto aimed at the regions. She's going for Labour heartlands
But is it the right way to taget them? Someone please help me, see if I understand this:
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
surely it's £100k each though, so your numbers are out, and you only have to pay £50k.
No you have to give up all your savings plus all but £100k of your house to have care at home.
Good luck selling that to someone currently getting free care or paying a token amount.
In Derbyshire they currently paya maximum of £41 a week to their care
For decades, we've been told that the declining Lab+Con share is a symptom of the electorate's wider and growing disillusionment with the political class. We must therefore infer from the upswing in Lab+Con that the British public are now pretty satisfied with their politicians.
Watch the turnout.
Ha, yes. I should point out that I was being slightly tongue-in-cheek
Not really, one way or the other. $1.30 is still pitifully low. The long run average is probably about $1.65 and it's less than ten years since £ touched $2.00. As I said to the guy on here who was speculating about further falls, once A50 was out of the way a climb back towards $1.40 was the more likely scenario. Not least because the US has its own troubles.
Bollocks. Absolutely massive big fucking hairy bouncing bollocks. The Remainer prediction was that sterling would tank, perhaps to parity with the euro and the dollar, and the falls would continue through 2016 and past 2017..
That has never been my own view, as my previous posts make very clear. I did tell the PB guy who opened a dollar account expecting the trend towards parity to continue, at the time, that he was making a mistake.
Brexit remains another mistake, nevertheless. Read between the lines of Mrs May's speech today - she knows that the risks of things going wrong are not insignificant, and within her speech she planted the excuses she'll be relying upon if this comes to pass.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
Er, no. The children are not paying £130K 'to the government'. Their parents are using £130K of their own wealth to pay for part, but not all, of their own care. There's good news and bad news on this for the children. The good news is that at present, they might end up with just £23K, whereas under the new proposals they will be left with at least £100K with the taxpayer forking out the difference. The bad news is that under the new proposals the same rules apply whether the care is provided in a residential home or in the parents' own home.
On balance, it seems pretty reasonable, given that someone has to pay.
The government will work with train companies and employees to agree minimum service levels during periods of dispute. If voluntary agreement isn't reached, legislation will be enacted.
Can someone really clever explain what is happening to the Lib Dems? Suddenly all their voters are flocking to Corbyn??
Is this the last, desperate Remainers thinking: ooh, Labour are saying we won't leave the EU without a good deal? A possible chance to Stay?
(I thought this was a very clever move by Labour, incidentally - almost unnoticed by the press)
Or is this the lefty LDs liking lots of Labour's manifesto?
It's labour dominating the headlines for the last few days, and lib dems barely getting a look in.
Yes, a Party Conference Effect, certainly some of that.
But the Tories need to destroy Labour, not just beat them, so we can get a sensible Opposition. Otherwise there is a real risk a Corbyn-esque, Chavezite, hard Left Labour will sneak a win in 2022.
Are PB Tories panicking already? Not to worry guys; 70/80+ seat majority nailed on.
Now they're REALLY worried.
If May doesn't get a large majority, then she only has herself to blame. She really looks like she hates campaigning, which given the fact that she's a politician is problematic.
Those who know her know she LOVES door-knocking on the campaign trail.
Really? She isn't coming across that way
she doesn't like people questioning her, thats all.....
Yes, it's clear she wants the whole thing over and done with. She clearly hates campaigning and looks absolutely knackered. Corbyn, on the other hand, is in his element (but will still get hammered as campaigns change very little).
Comments
+8 for Lab and -7 for Lib-Dems are huge changes!
Now it will be and anyone living in a house worth more than £100k will pay in full for that care.
The house being sold and the state picking up all but 100k of the estate when the person and spouse die
It is the safeguard against some sort of extreme candidate being elected on a minority of the vote, because the opposition to him or her is divided.
I don't understand it. Their only answer was that Farron was a "dick".
She won't get it. She might be able to unilaterally agree to maintain UK alignment with whatever the EU charges on those bits and pieces, and cut out a bit of bureaucracy.
On railways: continued support for the current infrastructure program (*), HS2 and HS3, and the introduction of a passengers ombudsman.
(*) That might be problematic considering the way Network Rail doesn't have control of its costs.
Imagine you are a 65 year old couple in the Manchester suburbs, your house is worth £230,000. BUT you have only £20,000 total savings. CURRENTLY you don't have to pay for social care if you grow old and have care in your own home. AND you can leave the house to your children, all of it.
What she is proposing is to inclusde the value of their home into the calculations, BANG suddenly I will have to pay for my care, and this cost will come from my childrens inheritance. The govenment now can take the whole inheritance except £100,000.
The couples children in the Manchester suburbs will pay the government Up to ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY THOUSAND PONDS! Where as before they didn't pay anything.
This policy is NOT for the regions.
http://news.sky.com/story/sterling-above-130-as-retail-sales-net-easter-boost-10882477
"the biggest rise in the value of retail spending in 15 years over the three months to April - up 6.2% on a year earlier"
It's what and how serious your 30%+ is that matters for gaining power in Government, not just the raw number.
And it's a long, long way from 30% to 37-38%.
Given the kind of voter profile the LDs were aiming at in this election, Farron in terms of his personality/background was about the worst front-man you could choose.
WTF, Lib Dems abandoning ship en-masse in favour of Labour? What did Tim do, I missed it?
With nearly half the voting public voting Tory there's no excuse whatsoever for Labour to not try to target the Tory vote in the next electoral term.
I remember visiting the US during Labour day, when it was $2 a £1, in a state with no sales tax and everything on sale because of the holiday. The woman at a clothes store thought I was completely bonkers when I basically bought a new wardrobe of new clothes...
Take your pick.
Mr Lennon's view is pure nanny state - we know your interests better than you do.
Corbyn ought to get onto this PDQ.
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/death-taxes-the-conservative-manifesto-and-the-changing-politics-of-intergenerational-fairness/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/tv/roger-ailes-architect-of-conservative-tv-juggernaut-fox-is-dead-at-77/2017/05/18/b5b9e73a-3bc7-11e7-9e48-c4f199710b69_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-high_ailes-855a:homepage/story&utm_term=.2174328d90e1
https://twitter.com/thehistoryguy/status/864894581002780673
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/death-taxes-the-conservative-manifesto-and-the-changing-politics-of-intergenerational-fairness/
http://ffl.org.uk/immediate-test-of-brexit-london-convention-1964/
I think its quite brave of May to take on the southern pensioner rich and their heirs.....not that she'll get any thanks for it!
There's a pledge not to raise VAT and to honour previous commitments on personal tax allowances and corporation tax.
On Brexit, we will cut and paste EU WTO schedules to begin with and 'grandfather' existing FTAs with third parties.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3593399/11-ways-theresa-may-is-binning-david-camerons-tory-2015-manifesto-with-her-blueprint-for-brexit-britain/
Good luck selling that to someone currently getting free care or paying a token amount.
In Derbyshire they currently paya maximum of £41 a week to their care
Brexit remains another mistake, nevertheless. Read between the lines of Mrs May's speech today - she knows that the risks of things going wrong are not insignificant, and within her speech she planted the excuses she'll be relying upon if this comes to pass.
On balance, it seems pretty reasonable, given that someone has to pay.
But now after the great house theft policy who knows.