Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Perhaps I’ve judged Corbyn wrong as new Ipsos MORI poll sees C

1246

Comments

  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    glw said:

    Another question - which is the more worrying for the elderly? That they might be turfed out of their home or forced to sell to pay for care/ability to get care when needed or how much cash the kids get?

    My guess would be the former, but I don't expect the argument to get past "Dementia Tax".
    In which case the blue team need to be selling the benefits of security in you and your spouses lifetime and not allowing the proposals to be characterised as a tax on dementia.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 27,016
    chestnut said:

    I can see that we'll soon be claiming that anyone who is down to their last hundred grand is in relative poverty.

    Its not £100k in cash is it? Its £100k in an illiquid asset forcing you to find actual liquid cash you probably won't have to pay for something that's essential. But as its the same government who have been happy to imprison the disabled in their homes by taking their cars off them and sends terminally ill cancer patients off to find a job, we shouldn't be surprised that people who can't remember who they are are next for that compassionate Conservative kick in the knackers.

    People didn't seem bothered when it was the sick and dying being brutalised. Perhaps now its their nice middle class granny it might be something to brew enough bile that they can be shamed into not doing it. And yes, the word is shame. Its immoral.

    It'll almost certainly get a lot of voters supporting it...
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Sandpit said:

    Hopefully a government with a large majority can keep looking through the too-difficult list, merger of income tax, national insurance and universal credit next maybe; or perhaps reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax charge on private health insurance?

    That merger makes a lot of sense, but it will be pitched by opponents as "ending the funding of the NHS and pensions".
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Current Boundary Review to continue.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,403
    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    In PCC elections I don't have a first preference!

    Laters...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,091
    MikeL said:

    Current Boundary Review to continue.

    Until they are told otherwise. Not news.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    What was the turnout like in the Local Elections compared to normal?

    Couldn't tell you offhand, Phil, but this is different, isn't it? The locals were part of the normal cycle whereas this one is a bit unnecessary. I know the reasons she gave but it's really being done for Party advantage and that's unlikely to energise the great unwashed.
    I'm not sure whether the "great unwashed" care why the vote is happening, just that it is happening and if they back [or oppose] an option on the ballot.

    While there's talk of being bored of politics the fact is that in the last few elections people have become more engaged with politics. Turnout in 2015 was up. Turnout in 2016 was highest in decades. Far from disengaging, people are getting in the habit of voting.

    The one thing I would say though is that anyone who didn't vote in either 2015 or 2016 unless they're 18 will not be voting this year either.
    OK, noted with thanks, Philip. I've backed a smaller than usual turnout to modest stakes and am happy to stand by it - and admit my mistake later if I'm wrong.

    Maybe the problem around here is that the two big Constituencies have big majorities, although over in marginal Hampstead which I visit regularly, I don't notice any greater buzz.
    I have no idea where the line is on the markets but would you be happy to do a tenner friendly bet on turnout versus 2015? I think it will be up and you presumably think it will be down?

    Happy to do either a straight bet or a charity one whichever you prefer.
    It'll be a charity one, if at all, Philip. Drop me an email if you are interested. arklebar@gmail.com
    Done.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    In which case the blue team need to be selling the benefits of security in you and your spouses lifetime and not allowing the proposals to be characterised as a tax on dementia.

    I think it's probably too late for that, much like the "bedroom tax".
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786

    chestnut said:

    I can see that we'll soon be claiming that anyone who is down to their last hundred grand is in relative poverty.

    Its not £100k in cash is it? Its £100k in an illiquid asset forcing you to find actual liquid cash you probably won't have to pay for something that's essential. But as its the same government who have been happy to imprison the disabled in their homes by taking their cars off them and sends terminally ill cancer patients off to find a job, we shouldn't be surprised that people who can't remember who they are are next for that compassionate Conservative kick in the knackers.

    People didn't seem bothered when it was the sick and dying being brutalised. Perhaps now its their nice middle class granny it might be something to brew enough bile that they can be shamed into not doing it. And yes, the word is shame. Its immoral.

    It'll almost certainly get a lot of voters supporting it...
    You get that nobody has to pay for care in their lifetime right?
  • david_herdsondavid_herdson Posts: 17,401
    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    The end of SV would be something to rejoice about. Awful, bastard system.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    Free TV licences to be kept for the whole Parliament.

    Bit of confusion here - I'm sure responsibility for free TVLs has been handed to the BBC from 2020 onwards - ie BBC could introduce charge if they wanted to.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited May 2017

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?
  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    Sean_F said:

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    There are worse fates than inheriting £100,000. This seems like an eminently reasonable policy to me.
    It’s the only manifesto promise so far that even attempts to address a huge problem that isn’t going away. It’s far from perfect, or more precisely there are still some gaps that need further explanation, but on the whole, not a bad first attempt IMHO.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    The big point here is that the Conservative manifesto is a manifesto for government. The others... not so much.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    MikeL said:

    Free TV licences to be kept for the whole Parliament.

    Bit of confusion here - I'm sure responsibility for free TVLs has been handed to the BBC from 2020 onwards - ie BBC could introduce charge if they wanted to.

    I thought the duty to cover the cost of free TV Licences had been handed to the BBC but that the BBC was still obliged to honour the free licences. In which case this will likely be extended for every Parliament as it doesn't cost the government a penny so why not extend it?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 47,789
    chestnut said:

    I can see that we'll soon be claiming that anyone who is down to their last hundred grand is in relative poverty.

    At last the government has found a target they can actually get down to tens of thousands instead of hundreds of thousands.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    There really is no need for debate, tax incomes or spending, anything else will be less fair and efficient. The trouble is virtually all parties try to avoid raising such taxes, Tories rule them out, the Lib Dems want just 1p on the basic rate, and Labour want to exclude 95% from any tax rises. None of those are sensible proposals.

    Get rid of NI, keep raising the threshold for the basic rate, have several rates of tax up to a top rate of 50%, flat rate VAT on everything.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059

    MTimT said:

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
    Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
    A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.

    Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
    I don't get this argument - so you should be able to leave the £1m AND get free care for those illnesses if you are unfortunate to need the care to support you with them?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.

    They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    The difference is the risk was pooled. All estates paid. This time the risk is individualized. It is bonkers.

    I agree needs to be a debate.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059

    The big point here is that the Conservative manifesto is a manifesto for government. The others... not so much.

    I said exactly that early on but in a more verbose way!
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826

    The big point here is that the Conservative manifesto is a manifesto for government. The others... not so much.

    Well said. We have the early outlines of what can be expected at future budgets here and can judge accordingly - rather than a fantasy wishlist cobbled together.
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979

    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    The end of SV would be something to rejoice about. Awful, bastard system.
    I disagree. We need a referendum on this constitutional change.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

  • MarkHopkinsMarkHopkins Posts: 5,584

    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    It would simply make more sense to tax income, not tax what someone leaves behind when they die. Otherwise spendthrifts pay little.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    We pool risk on, say becoming unemployed, so why not on getting dementia and needing care?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2017
    glw said:

    Sandpit said:

    Hopefully a government with a large majority can keep looking through the too-difficult list, merger of income tax, national insurance and universal credit next maybe; or perhaps reversal of the benefit-in-kind tax charge on private health insurance?

    That merger makes a lot of sense, but it will be pitched by opponents as "ending the funding of the NHS and pensions".
    It's often talked about, but we need to make taxes in general much simpler, lower rates combined with tougher enforcement and anti-avoidance measures. Bloody difficult to do it in practice though, without upsetting a lot of people and / or being seriously down on revenue.
  • PAWPAW Posts: 1,074
    bigjohnowls - thank you.
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 30,820
    edited May 2017

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    I agree that the Andy Burnham proposal was one possible approach, and I can see that it's not an unreasonable one which some people might favour (although did the figures add up?) It was the presentation of it, as 'free' care, which I thought was absolutely reprehensible.
  • bobajobPBbobajobPB Posts: 1,042
    eek said:

    bobajobPB said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    eek said:

    Asking for a friend who lives with his parents, but he also owns an apartment in Manchester.

    How would the dementia tax apply in this scenario?

    Who owns the house your parents live in?
    My parents. They bought it for 13 grand in 1981 and is worth a lot more now.
    I provided one solution below. Another one was to move when the symptoms appear (prior to care being needed) and ensuring the new house is not in the name of the person requiring care.
    My parents are absolutely debt averse.

    My mother thinks debt is the eighth deadly sin, she'll think she's leaving me and the kids her debts.
    It still boils down to transferring assets around family members early enough that no claw back is possible....

    As I stated given that the child still lives with the parents its easier to justify than would otherwise be the case. Especially if its times alongside large house renovations / improvements...
    That's right I think. You can set it up so the house automatic transfers into the hands of the children the moment one parent dies. Is this what you are driving at?
    Trusts are explicitly mentioned in the Tory manifesto for their tax reduction possibilities and the need to reduce those options - so personally I wouldn't be rushing to create a new trust...
    Presumably the change won't be retroactive?
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,900
    Spreads still suggesting PMTM is on for a 140 majority.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    The cost of most people's care is going to be absolutely peanuts compared to the value of their home.

    If it's in-home care it's definitely peanuts.

    If you go into residential care it could be a lot - but then you have to sell your home now to pay for that.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879

    It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.

    They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    The difference is the risk was pooled. All estates paid. This time the risk is individualized. It is bonkers.

    I agree needs to be a debate.

    Exactly - on the left we favour pooled risk; the Tory solution is to heap the risk on the individual. It is a major difference in philosophy. I get the Tory position, I don't condemn it as immoral. I just don't think it is as equitable as the centre left solution.

    In future years Theresa May well be seen as a great gift to the moderate left. She is making its case easier to make because she is moving towards it in so many ways, but with Tory solutions.

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    MTimT said:

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
    Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
    A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.

    Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
    I don't get this argument - so you should be able to leave the £1m AND get free care for those illnesses if you are unfortunate to need the care to support you with them?
    No. The risk should be pooled. Every estate pays 10% or £20K or whatever figure we need to come up with.

    Why should Mrs Smith in leafy Somewhere leave £1m property to her kids, whilst Mrs Brown next door leaves nothing as she was sadly in a care home for ten years? Which is the conservative position?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281

    MikeL said:

    Free TV licences to be kept for the whole Parliament.

    Bit of confusion here - I'm sure responsibility for free TVLs has been handed to the BBC from 2020 onwards - ie BBC could introduce charge if they wanted to.

    I thought the duty to cover the cost of free TV Licences had been handed to the BBC but that the BBC was still obliged to honour the free licences. In which case this will likely be extended for every Parliament as it doesn't cost the government a penny so why not extend it?
    Cameron had definitely given the BBC the option of charging over 75s if they wanted to.

    Looks like May has closed this off.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535
    Sandpit said:

    It's often talked about, but we need to make taxes in general much simpler, lover rates combined with tougher enforcement and anti-avoidance measures. Bloody difficult to do it in practice though, without upsetting a lot of people and / or being seriously down on revenue.

    Totally agree, but you only have to look at the stupid attacks on a proposal to deal with a need as pressing social care to see how the chances of us successfully simplifying our tax system are very low.

    We can't even have a sensible debate about it, because if you can find just one person (out of millions) who loses out from a tax change then it's "not fair" and therefore bad. Which is the stupidest f*cking argument against a tax proposal going, because wealth isn't fair, ability isn't fair, working isn't fair, in fact none of the things that could hypothetically be taxed are fair. There will always be winners and losers whatever we do.
  • wills66wills66 Posts: 103
    MikeL said:

    How much does in-home care actually cost on average?

    If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?

    It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?

    The care bills for my Dad (dementia+cancer), who had in-home care and then moved into a care home were in the region of £15k. This was for about 6 months of in-home visits (up to 5 times a day at the end) followed by about 6 months of care home costs. This was in a "low cost" region of the UK (Plymouth) where wages and property prices, the driver of care costs, are low.

    It turned out to be about 10% of the value of the house.

    I think the winter fuel allowance is likely to cause more of a ruction. In the case of my Dad, again, despite being the recipient of a Navy pension, a Civil Service pension and a State pension he still took the fuel allowance. He considered it his due for years of hard work & paying taxes, even though he freely acknowledged that his retirement income meant he didn't really need it. Same with his free bus pass.

    I think his argument at the time was something along the lines of "those lazy sods who didn't bother to save for their retirement ( but spent their money on fancy cars & nice holidays instead) are getting it, so I'm going to get it too."

    The care costs are something you (or your estate) will pay at some fuzzy undetermined time in the future, the fuel allowance is something you'll notice you are not getting right now.

    WillS
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043

    It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.

    They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    The difference is the risk was pooled. All estates paid. This time the risk is individualized. It is bonkers.

    I agree needs to be a debate.

    Exactly - on the left we favour pooled risk; the Tory solution is to heap the risk on the individual. It is a major difference in philosophy. I get the Tory position, I don't condemn it as immoral. I just don't think it is as equitable as the centre left solution.

    In future years Theresa May well be seen as a great gift to the moderate left. She is making its case easier to make because she is moving towards it in so many ways, but with Tory solutions.

    So why do Conservatives take out Buildings insurance?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,091
    Barnesian said:

    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    The end of SV would be something to rejoice about. Awful, bastard system.
    I disagree. We need a referendum on this constitutional change.
    It would be very foolish to give any city a mayor who is not preferred by at least half of those who have voted.
  • DaveW said:

    Labour do seem to be getting a lot of air time. I keep turning on the TV and Gordon Brown is on BBC parliament getting more exposure than in 2010. This does look like a smaller parties squeeze and the Liberal Democrats are having a shocking campaign. They need to give propel a reason to turn to them as an alternative opposition after all, if you expect the Tories to win big and you want an alternative opposition then you will be just as safe getting moderate labour MPs elected who may run either remove Corbyn or form their own group. Essentially we are a small c conservative country and respect to Labour they have put out a reasonably small c conservative policy platform. Remember the so called 35% strategy that Milliband had? Well this looks like 32% strategy. It could work and pick up some bonus votes and get 34-35%. It may of course go the other way if discipline goes and the Tories and press turn on the big fire power. So Labour look like anything between 28- 35 %

    If Labour get 35%, I'll show my arse in Fenwicks
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    We pool risk on, say becoming unemployed, so why not on getting dementia and needing care?
    not sure that's a great comparison - you get buttons unemployment pay and people can instead take out unemployment insurance to protect themselves but hardly anyone does?

    with care fees, you can't take out insurance as there's a market failure to do so (used to be products but insurers ran a mile as care costs soared) - other than immediate needs annuities at the point of need if you are a self-funder and there's only 2 insurers offering those now.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    edited May 2017

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    Labour and the Lib Dems need to be a bit careful here, aiui their manifestos would see some people with dementia down to 23,000 and their families having to sell the family home whilst worrying about their sick relative.
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059

    MTimT said:

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
    Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
    A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.

    Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
    I don't get this argument - so you should be able to leave the £1m AND get free care for those illnesses if you are unfortunate to need the care to support you with them?
    No. The risk should be pooled. Every estate pays 10% or £20K or whatever figure we need to come up with.

    Why should Mrs Smith in leafy Somewhere leave £1m property to her kids, whilst Mrs Brown next door leaves nothing as she was sadly in a care home for ten years? Which is the conservative position?
    or Mrs Brown caps the risk of her longevity by having bought an immediate needs annuity once she went in to the home? She then leaves an inheritance reduced by the cost of that premium.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 40,950
    wills66 said:

    MikeL said:

    How much does in-home care actually cost on average?

    If you are billed for it after you die, how much would that bill actually be?

    It would surely be only a tiny proportion of the value of the home?

    The care bills for my Dad (dementia+cancer), who had in-home care and then moved into a care home were in the region of £15k. This was for about 6 months of in-home visits (up to 5 times a day at the end) followed by about 6 months of care home costs. This was in a "low cost" region of the UK (Plymouth) where wages and property prices, the driver of care costs, are low.

    It turned out to be about 10% of the value of the house.

    I think the winter fuel allowance is likely to cause more of a ruction. In the case of my Dad, again, despite being the recipient of a Navy pension, a Civil Service pension and a State pension he still took the fuel allowance. He considered it his due for years of hard work & paying taxes, even though he freely acknowledged that his retirement income meant he didn't really need it. Same with his free bus pass.

    I think his argument at the time was something along the lines of "those lazy sods who didn't bother to save for their retirement ( but spent their money on fancy cars & nice holidays instead) are getting it, so I'm going to get it too."

    The care costs are something you (or your estate) will pay at some fuzzy undetermined time in the future, the fuel allowance is something you'll notice you are not getting right now.

    WillS
    v interesting and good to add some numbers as well as participant perspective to it all. Thanks.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2017
    glw said:

    Sandpit said:

    It's often talked about, but we need to make taxes in general much simpler, lover rates combined with tougher enforcement and anti-avoidance measures. Bloody difficult to do it in practice though, without upsetting a lot of people and / or being seriously down on revenue.

    Totally agree, but you only have to look at the stupid attacks on a proposal to deal with a need as pressing social care to see how the chances of us successfully simplifying our tax system are very low.

    We can't even have a sensible debate about it, because if you can find just one person (out of millions) who loses out from a tax change then it's "not fair" and therefore bad. Which is the stupidest f*cking argument against a tax proposal going, because wealth isn't fair, ability isn't fair, working isn't fair, in fact none of the things that could hypothetically be taxed are fair. There will always be winners and losers whatever we do.
    Agree completely, which is why it's good to see at least some of the difficult questions mentioned, in the manifesto of the party that's likely to enjoy a sizeable majority for the next five years. There's a great opportunity if the Tories want to take it.

    I'm going to have a good read (rather than a skim) of the manifesto later, paying attention to what's not mentioned especially with regard to taxation.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 58,043
    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
    :+1:
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 38,879
    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?

    It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.

  • SimonStClareSimonStClare Posts: 7,976
    SeanT said:
    Probably a Norwegian driving on the wrong side of the road.
  • Peter_the_PunterPeter_the_Punter Posts: 13,225

    DaveW said:

    Labour do seem to be getting a lot of air time. I keep turning on the TV and Gordon Brown is on BBC parliament getting more exposure than in 2010. This does look like a smaller parties squeeze and the Liberal Democrats are having a shocking campaign. They need to give propel a reason to turn to them as an alternative opposition after all, if you expect the Tories to win big and you want an alternative opposition then you will be just as safe getting moderate labour MPs elected who may run either remove Corbyn or form their own group. Essentially we are a small c conservative country and respect to Labour they have put out a reasonably small c conservative policy platform. Remember the so called 35% strategy that Milliband had? Well this looks like 32% strategy. It could work and pick up some bonus votes and get 34-35%. It may of course go the other way if discipline goes and the Tories and press turn on the big fire power. So Labour look like anything between 28- 35 %

    If Labour get 35%, I'll show my arse in Fenwicks
    Wow, that's some hostage to fortune! Will we get a picture as proof?

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited May 2017

    It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.

    They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    The difference is the risk was pooled. All estates paid. This time the risk is individualized. It is bonkers.

    I agree needs to be a debate.

    Exactly - on the left we favour pooled risk; the Tory solution is to heap the risk on the individual. It is a major difference in philosophy. I get the Tory position, I don't condemn it as immoral. I just don't think it is as equitable as the centre left solution.

    In future years Theresa May well be seen as a great gift to the moderate left. She is making its case easier to make because she is moving towards it in so many ways, but with Tory solutions.

    It's good to see the debate finally happening - Sir Humphrey might have called the PM 'brave' for even mentioning it - and I think we all agree that doing nothing is no longer an option.
  • glwglw Posts: 9,535

    It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.

    That is the best thing, and with some luck (sensible Labour MPs splitting off to form their own block) it won't be the manifesto commitment that passes, but something better.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 30,340

    MTimT said:

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
    Agreed. It is effectively means-testing. I thought that conservatism stresses that welfare should be reserved for those who truly need it.
    A few years ago Osborne and Cameron were telling us all about the inherent feeling that all parents have to pass on their hard-earned wealth to the next generation and what a good thing that is and we will support it further by raising the IHT to effectively £1m for a couple.

    Now, we are told that all applies unless you get dementia, MS or Parkinson's. In which case tough.
    I don't get this argument - so you should be able to leave the £1m AND get free care for those illnesses if you are unfortunate to need the care to support you with them?
    No. The risk should be pooled. Every estate pays 10% or £20K or whatever figure we need to come up with.

    Why should Mrs Smith in leafy Somewhere leave £1m property to her kids, whilst Mrs Brown next door leaves nothing as she was sadly in a care home for ten years? Which is the conservative position?
    You're asking the wrong question. Why should the middle-aged Brown children have their wealthy mother's care paid for by the state just so they can inherit a large sum of money (bearing in mind that the Brown children might have undertaken the care themselves if they really wanted to)?
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    ‪I predicted just this a few weeks ago. ‬

    https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/865236102541709312
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842

    Icarus said:

    Rang a Tory voting friend who cares for a husband with Parkinsons at home. Gets help and respite - not very impressed that she will have to pay!

    The older voters are not going to like this.

    As I predicted last thread. It has started. The backlash.

    Terrible policy.

    Will end in tears mark my words.

    To answer some of the points raised on last thread. A key aspect of this is the removal of Cameron's overall cap, which was due in 2020.

    So, you get unlucky and spend years in a care home. You pay - big time. Until you have only £100K left for your kids. And that's if they sort out the transfer on death between spouses and partners. No mention of that at this point as far as I can see.
    I'm struggling to see why the middle-aged should expect to have their parents' care paid for by the state so that they can receive more than £100,000 on their parents' death.
    That's not really my immediate concern right now. June 8th is,.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. T, I agree, said earlier it could be a serious mistake by May.

    Mr. Observer, I'd probably want to consider this at some length, but I'm inclined to agree with pooling of risk for this sort of thing. I still don't favour a death tax, though.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    Labour and the Lib Dems need to be a bit careful here, aiui their manifestos would see some people with dementia down to 23,000 and their families having to sell the family home whilst worrying about their sick relative.
    Yes, and the Tories need to jump on this very quickly to make it clear that they're proposing a quadrupling of the current allowance, as well as removing the need to sell property while alive to fund care.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 4,382

    The big point here is that the Conservative manifesto is a manifesto for government. The others... not so much.

    Well said. We have the early outlines of what can be expected at future budgets here and can judge accordingly - rather than a fantasy wishlist cobbled together.
    Both are fantasy wish lists .We have no costings for the conservative manifesto.Deficit been pushed further into the long grass.Possible tax rises on income national insurance and other areas.With no effective opposition you can get away with it .However even people favourable to the the constant pragmatism to retain power at all costs, will eventually question if this is the best for the country or just the conservative party.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    Have spoken to three people in their 60's this afternoon and Theresa May removing the pensioner perks seems to be going down like a bowl of cold sick with the baby boomers...
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Incidentally, no Conservative or Labour representatives on the ITV debate?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
    :+1:
    I reckon the Tories got cocky and complacent, looking at the polls, and thought Let's propose something bold, rather than the usual, Let's propose a Commission and THEN do something bold when we're safely in power.

    Trouble is, the bold thing they've proposed looks bad, and smells bad, even if it might be quite sensible in the long run. Idiotic.

    They will surely still win, but this could potentially lose them 2-4 points in the polls, maybe more.
    It gives them the mandate to do things which have been kicked in to the grass by multiple previous Governments - as Richard N has pointed out this is them saying there's some tough stuff to be done and if it's ever going to be done by a Govt we're able to do so now and not hide it & because we think we can afford the hit for doing so.... and if it happens to mean a smaller majority than the landslide envisaged by many, well so be it.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
    :+1:
    I reckon the Tories got cocky and complacent, looking at the polls, and thought Let's propose something bold, rather than the usual, Let's propose a Commission and THEN do something bold when we're safely in power.

    Trouble is, the bold thing they've proposed looks bad, and smells bad, even if it might be quite sensible in the long run. Idiotic.

    They will surely still win, but this could potentially lose them 2-4 points in the polls, maybe more.
    Yeah thinking about it, the inheritance which now disappears will for a lot of people be the difference between owning a house, and not ever owning one, because it's their one shot at getting a deposit together. A blow at the tories' natural constituency. Which doesn't make it wrong, but makes it brave.
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,092
    Maybe she's trying not to get a three figure majority.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Sandpit said:

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    Paying for your own care, or at least some of it, is not a tax, any more than paying your own supermarket bill is a food tax. It's responsible planning for your old age.

    Still, it's very entertaining seeing left-inclined people so deeply concerned that a small number of the children of the well-off might inherit only £100K, when under the current rules they might inherit only £23K. Whatever happened to the left's love of progressive taxation, if you are going to call this a tax?

    You do know the average house price in the UK, don't you? This will potentially affect just about every elderly person who owns his/her own home. The key question is which might such homeowners prefer: £20,000 of the value of the home you leave behind going to the state to fund social care, even if you do not end up with dementia or another debilitating disease; or nothing if you don't, but tens or even hundreds of thousands if you do? It's an important debate and one we could and should have been having years ago. For me, as a lefty, the former seems a lot more reasonable and equitable; but I can see the other point of view, even if I do not share it.

    Labour and the Lib Dems need to be a bit careful here, aiui their manifestos would see some people with dementia down to 23,000 and their families having to sell the family home whilst worrying about their sick relative.
    Yes, and the Tories need to jump on this very quickly to make it clear that they're proposing a quadrupling of the current allowance, as well as removing the need to sell property while alive to fund care.
    They appear too set in their sit back and let Corbyn implode mode to do so. It is hard to see large numbers of wealthy pensioners flocking to Corbyn but they might lose a couple of points to UKIP.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 3,787
    CBS: NYPD say motive for Times Square incident "not terror". Suspect has multiple DUIs.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697

    Incidentally, no Conservative or Labour representatives on the ITV debate?

    It's a leaders debate and Con/Lab leaders declined to attend...
  • Sandpit said:

    It's good to see that the Tories are now conceding their previous positions on a Death Tax were wrong.

    They are not conceding anything of the sort. Labour's proposal was indeed a straightforward Death Tax, where you paid £20K for a 'free' service (as Gordon Brown, with typically shameless dishonesty, put it), whether or not you needed the service.

    Yes, Labour favoured taxing everyone, not a specific tax on families with elderly relatives who are unlucky enough to get dementia or another debilitating disease. It's good we have got to this stage. I think a Death Tax v a Dementia Tax debate is well worth having.

    The difference is the risk was pooled. All estates paid. This time the risk is individualized. It is bonkers.

    I agree needs to be a debate.

    Exactly - on the left we favour pooled risk; the Tory solution is to heap the risk on the individual. It is a major difference in philosophy. I get the Tory position, I don't condemn it as immoral. I just don't think it is as equitable as the centre left solution.

    In future years Theresa May well be seen as a great gift to the moderate left. She is making its case easier to make because she is moving towards it in so many ways, but with Tory solutions.

    It's good to see the debate finally happening - Sir Humphrey might have called the PM 'brave' for even mentioning it - and I think we all agree that doing nothing is no longer an option.
    This.

    The rationale presumably is something has to be done, but nothing necessary or painful can be done when you're level pegging in the polls. So you wait till you're 18 points in front and then you do something. You blow 5 points of your lead on finally fixing (or making a start on fixing, however you see it) an issue that's only going to get worse.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,037
    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?

    It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.

    Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
    It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,842
    Tim Farron a 3 point answer on UK political leaders
    Corbyn 24 pts.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Mr. Gin, cheers.

    I might watch for entertainment value, then.

    I hope proper leaders emerge in other parties at the election after the forthcoming one.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 23,670
    Whilst I am predicting a massive polling miss with Lab undershooting their current score considerably are we feeling this long GE campaign is an error by May? Was it's length forced by the FTPA?
  • Scrapheap_as_wasScrapheap_as_was Posts: 10,059
    murali_s said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?

    It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.

    Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
    It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
    want to bet on that outcome?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 60,933
    Put a small sum on Con 350-374 at 7 at Ladbrokes.
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    edited May 2017
    On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.

    Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.

    Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 113,972
    Sandpit said:

    Well of course he'd say that! Mrs May, along with everyone else, knows he's too good to be on the back benches. He has served his penance of a year's silence admirably.
    Too much history between Gove and Mrs May and her staff for him to come back.
  • mattmatt Posts: 3,789
    Ishmael_Z said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?
    :+1:
    I reckon the Tories got cocky and complacent, looking at the polls, and thought Let's propose something bold, rather than the usual, Let's propose a Commission and THEN do something bold when we're safely in power.

    Trouble is, the bold thing they've proposed looks bad, and smells bad, even if it might be quite sensible in the long run. Idiotic.

    They will surely still win, but this could potentially lose them 2-4 points in the polls, maybe more.
    Yeah thinking about it, the inheritance which now disappears will for a lot of people be the difference between owning a house, and not ever owning one, because it's their one shot at getting a deposit together. A blow at the tories' natural constituency. Which doesn't make it wrong, but makes it brave.
    On an age basis, really? Assuming people give birth at 30 and die at 80 you're suggesting that they will only be buying a house age 50. A touch hyperbolic perhaps?
  • Animal_pb said:

    Mr. B2, Labour.

    It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.

    Old Roman saying, during the late Republic, in respect of the senatorial regional governorships: you needed to make three fortunes - one to pay for the bribes that got you there, one to bribe your successors/public officials to prevent them prosecuting you and one for you to keep. Call it extortion or taxation, it was still levying money from the population, and it was built into the late Republic just as much as the later Empire.
    Interesting, not heard that saying.

    AAMOI, and at risk of derailing, what would be the oldest private money in the world today? There can't be anyone who has inherited a fortune dating from Roman times but how old is very old money? Some of the UK nobility I guess? The bulk of the current Duke of Wellington's money is only about 200 years old. Whose is older?
  • perdixperdix Posts: 1,806
    murali_s said:

    SeanT said:

    SeanT said:


    One side point about the £100,000 - most families have more than 1 child.

    If you are one of four, you are down to £25,000.

    I don't think the Tories have thought this through, in terms of presentation. Yes it has a kind of logic, but even the most inept Opposition could make it look horrendous - a dementia tax, the state seizing mummy's home just because she's gaga. The upsides are hard to grasp, because they're complex; the downsides are obvious, therefore much more dangerous.

    It is potentially a game-changer. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Where was Crosby when they dreamed this up?

    It's not a game-changer. Corbyn ensures that. But when the Tories introduce this it does free up a Labour party returned to sense to come up with its own policy based on pooled risk. I don't like May's solution, but she has made it easier to come up with a good one. We should all welcome that.

    Sure, TMay will still win, but she might have just lost her chance of a three figure majority. Depends how much focus this gets over the next few days. How will it play on TV?
    It would be hilarious if we get into hung parliament territory - unlikely to happen but would be a devastating judgement on the wooden hapless leader that Theresa May is.
    Wishful Lefty thinking.

  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Don't believe anything until it has been officially denied.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 65,826
    Alistair said:

    Whilst I am predicting a massive polling miss with Lab undershooting their current score considerably are we feeling this long GE campaign is an error by May? Was it's length forced by the FTPA?

    Yes.
  • brokenwheelbrokenwheel Posts: 3,352
    Pulpstar said:

    Tim Farron a 3 point answer on UK political leaders
    Corbyn 24 pts.

    You mean he's not pointless?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    Alistair said:

    Whilst I am predicting a massive polling miss with Lab undershooting their current score considerably are we feeling this long GE campaign is an error by May? Was it's length forced by the FTPA?

    I think it could have perhaps been one week shorter, but not much more than that.
  • dyedwooliedyedwoolie Posts: 7,786
    Jon Craig locking his lips again, she's gonna be blanking Sky again, lol
  • madasafishmadasafish Posts: 659

    Animal_pb said:

    Mr. B2, Labour.

    It's not in response to a national need, but an entirely optional course they've chosen to take. Roman taxation problems were a result of civil wars and rampant inflation. Indeed, the comparable response now would be reducing the deficit, but Labour wants to increase it.

    Old Roman saying, during the late Republic, in respect of the senatorial regional governorships: you needed to make three fortunes - one to pay for the bribes that got you there, one to bribe your successors/public officials to prevent them prosecuting you and one for you to keep. Call it extortion or taxation, it was still levying money from the population, and it was built into the late Republic just as much as the later Empire.
    Interesting, not heard that saying.

    AAMOI, and at risk of derailing, what would be the oldest private money in the world today? There can't be anyone who has inherited a fortune dating from Roman times but how old is very old money? Some of the UK nobility I guess? The bulk of the current Duke of Wellington's money is only about 200 years old. Whose is older?
    Duke of Westminster?
  • FattyBolgerFattyBolger Posts: 299
    MikeL said:

    On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.

    Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.

    Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.

    Flawed analysis i think. Everyone will fear they MAY lose out
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    But can the Tories end up with more women MPs than Labour have MPs in total, that is the question? Around 130 each maybe?
  • pbr2013pbr2013 Posts: 649
    I've been thinking about the social care thing. It does mean that I stand to inherit a share of a 100k estate instead of a 300k estate (tiny violin, I know but it means a lot to my father). He has significant mobility issues rather than dementia and pays c2k pm for carers at home. Under the existing system his house is outside the asset definition and once his cash savings come down to 23k he wouldn't have to pay for care.

    You can see the rationale in the current asset assessment. In most cases you'd expect disabled old people to do better living independently if this is possible. By definition, you don't need your house if you have to go into residential care. But having reflected on it today the charge (or whatever mechanism eventually employed) on the house owned by someone in receipt of care services at home, payable by the estate (with interest it seems) is, however you look at it, some species of tax, even if not branded as such.

    Some other points occur. If my father keels over tomorrow I will be better off financially. It will take about a decade at this rate for his notional assets for this purpose to be depleted to 100k).

    And the financial advisers down thread are quite right. There is a massive market failure here. If some enterprising insurance underwriter wants to take a punt you could easily see how a useful insurance product could be designed. It would be a lot easier if there was some state pump-priming. If they can lend 600m to NEST why not the same sort of intervention here? They are hardly unrelated areas


  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382

    Put a small sum on Con 350-374 at 7 at Ladbrokes.

    Good bet

  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 20,697
    edited May 2017
    MikeL said:

    On Winter Fuel, they haven't said where means test will fall.

    Thus nobody knows whether they'll be affected or not.

    Result: Less impact on voters as less clear-cut - nobody has been told they are losing it for sure.

    I would think it's safe to assume they will try and get it off the majority of pensioners while they can.

    It a golden opportunity to cut all the perks right back (I agree with it BTW but I think it's very risky)

    A safer route would be just not to offer these perks to new pensioners and gradually start making savings as the existing pensioners die off... But that's not the route the Tories have chosen.

    I'd expect quite a big drop in Con support in the weekend polls.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    There is surely something wrong with our democracy that the Tories are set to be re-elected with 45% of the vote in after failing on their number one promise to eliminate the deficit (now promised to be ten years late if you choose to believe the manifesto). Where is the accountability?
  • RobDRobD Posts: 58,941
    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    Just rejoice at that news. :D
  • @ SeanT

    Interesting. Hadn't thought of those.

    @madasafish

    Is his money very old or just astonishingly abundant?

    There are people around now who are surely the richest people in history. Where will their money go? When will we see the world's first trillionaire?
  • MikeLMikeL Posts: 7,281
    RobD said:

    MikeL said:

    Has anyone mentioned this?

    Con will extend FPTP to Mayoral and PCC elections.

    ie 2nd preferences dropped.

    Just rejoice at that news. :D
    Rob - just on your spreadsheet, today's MORI should be 17 May.
  • chestnutchestnut Posts: 7,341
    I found this polling information on Winter Fuel Payments from last year:

    image

    Realistically, who is going to oppose the Tories on this? It's payable to millionaires.
This discussion has been closed.