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.
Spot on.
The age of massive, state subsidised inheritances from the baby boomer generation is over before it really got going.
Good.
But the overwhelming majority of boomers will leave a massive fortune to their prosperous middle-aged "children". A random sample of them will be reduced to beggary though care costs. There seems to be a mistaken idea afoot today that expensive end-of-life care is inevitable. It is not, and most people do not expect to need it.
I have one statistic to hand. Three living parents in their 80s. One requires care.
But, with respect, we cannot therefore assume that one-third of people in their 80s will require care. I have no idea what the correct statistic is, or will be in future. All I know is that a lot of 80-year-olds drive to my local supermarket, in seeming good health. Dementia is a random affliction and the cost should be borne by the whole of society and not by the patient's unfortunate family.
Reporting seems to be deficient here. Straightforward stats seem a bit hard to come by, esp given how comparatively unregulated the private care sector appears to be. Some numbers here:
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
But, typically, owned by two people so falling outside the proposed limit for an individual. The issue will be for the single elderly, who will, presumably, normally go into a care home if they suffer from dementia and can't care for themselves.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the policy will be a change in the sorts of homes that the elderly buy when they go into retirement (which may not be a bad thing).
This is also a good point. If senior citizens sell up, buy a retirement apartment and give the rest of the money away to the kids, then how much right or ability does the state have to force the kids to pay for their parents' care later?
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
I don't know if its been posted already but the electoral committion have uploaded there first weekly fundraising report, for the week 3-9 May, the totals are:
Conservative and Unionist Party £4,108,000 Green Party £15,000 Labour Party £2,683,300 Liberal Democrats £180,000 UK Independence Party (UKIP) £48,000 Women's Equality Party £20,544
Its looking like a 2 hores race, all the minor party's including LD dwarfed by the big 2.
looking at the individual donations, Lab is almost all Union money and most of that is form the Union Unite. Conservative mostly individuals with a lot in the £25,000 to £50,000 range but the biggest is £900,000
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
But, typically, owned by two people so falling outside the proposed limit for an individual. The issue will be for the single elderly, who will, presumably, normally go into a care home if they suffer from dementia and can't care for themselves.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the policy will be a change in the sorts of homes that the elderly buy when they go into retirement (which may not be a bad thing).
This is also a good point. If senior citizens sell up, buy a retirement apartment and give the rest of the money away to the kids, then how much right or ability does the state have to force the kids to pay for their parents' care later?
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
I don't know if its been posted already but the electoral committion have uploaded there first weekly fundraising report, for the week 3-9 May, the totals are:
Conservative and Unionist Party £4,108,000 Green Party £15,000 Labour Party £2,683,300 Liberal Democrats £180,000 UK Independence Party (UKIP) £48,000 Women's Equality Party £20,544
Its looking like a 2 hores race, all the minor party's including LD dwarfed by the big 2.
looking at the individual donations, Lab is almost all Union money and most of that is form the Union Unite. Conservative mostly individuals with a lot in the £25,000 to £50,000 range but the biggest is £900,000
I meant to add Link to the page on the electoral commition site is hear:
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
There's also the question of Employers NI. If you merge Employees NIC and Income Tax, what do you do to Employers NIC?
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
and the grey vote don't pay it more to the point!
It's also not paid the same by those with two jobs. You get the NIC tax-free allowance twice if you have two jobs.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
No, instead NICs should only be allowed to pay for unemployment benefit, the state pension, the NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do and so we use NIC to pay for rising demand in those areas, not income tax
Not only has he benched my player Eriksen meaning no points for me, he's brought in Sissoko for him... I mean that's TSE levels of trolling....
Everyone I've picked this week because they were playing two games has barely played one match.
I had Lorente first sub with 8 points... Gabbiadini missed the first game but blinking was recalled to play in the second one and promptly missed a penalty so scored exactly 0 points for me over a supposed 2 games and bed-blocked out my 8 points on the bench...
And the alternative is more of the same - dull as dishwater austerity and erosion of living standards (while the powerful and wealthy continue to plunder). People are quite frankly fed up of this and want a change.
No they don't - because the Tories are still expected to win handsomely. It is simply not true to say people want a change, if they increase the majority of the party in government.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
Given that the average house price in Leeds and Manchester is about 150k I'm not sure that stands up.
But, typically, owned by two people so falling outside the proposed limit for an individual. The issue will be for the single elderly, who will, presumably, normally go into a care home if they suffer from dementia and can't care for themselves.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the policy will be a change in the sorts of homes that the elderly buy when they go into retirement (which may not be a bad thing).
This is also a good point. If senior citizens sell up, buy a retirement apartment and give the rest of the money away to the kids, then how much right or ability does the state have to force the kids to pay for their parents' care later?
Could be treated in the same way as IHT?
more likely the deliberate deprivation rules which apply more often to care fees issues
Not that much coverage of the poll so far, considering how surprising it is. Expect everyone thinks it's an outlier.
Except's it's actually what I thought would happen after all the coverage of all their manifesto, rare for the Tory-Nervous Beeb, these days. The Maybot's lead is far too stonking for it to make any lasting difference, of course.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
It could be made progressive at the top end though, to give the same effective marginal rate as people pay in the income range £50-100k, i.e. sometimes over 60%.
Some of the money could be used to give higher earners a steadily higher state pension. As happens in the US. Also didn't we have a system like this pre-Thatcher?
What's the situation for social care in Scotland like ?
Roughly, free personal home care up to 5 visits a day. Your assets over c.£26k will all be used to pay for a care home, assets of between £16k-£26k you would need to make a contribution.
Assets excluding your home? Much like the situation as it stands in England, with a slightly higher allowance.
No, including your home. The value of the house is disregarded for the first 12 weeks (so it can be sold) but then it will be counted towards your assets/care home charges. It's not included if a spouse or partner (or in some cases relatives) are still living in the house.
What's the situation for social care in Scotland like ?
Roughly, free personal home care up to 5 visits a day. Your assets over c.£26k will all be used to pay for a care home, assets of between £16k-£26k you would need to make a contribution.
Assets excluding your home? Much like the situation as it stands in England, with a slightly higher allowance.
No, including your home. The value of the house is disregarded for the first 12 weeks (so it can be sold) but then it will be counted towards your care home charges. It's not included if a spouse or partner (or in some cases relatives) are still living in the house.
Oh okay, so that is sort of half way between the current and the new system. I think the Tory proposals covers all social care, not just care home?
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
I total agree with you that that National insurance contribution should be abolished and rolled into to Income tax. I when yo think of the cost saving from administration alone that could be had it is bizarre not to.
However, who benefits, well rich people who do not work, if you have wone the lottery, or inherited a lot of money and life of the interest, then you don't pay NI as its not Pay, similarly if you are over 65 (or maybe 67 now?) you do not pay.
Thousands of words were written about the 2015 Election Campaign, how much better Labour's was, and how much more Cameron needed to get stuck in. We then saw the same in the referendum, but in both cases opinions span on a six pence the next morning.
We shall have to wait and see.
I think the thing is the people thought Lab would be getting 25% at best by now. That there hasn't been a collapse is highly unexpected.
Not only has he benched my player Eriksen meaning no points for me, he's brought in Sissoko for him... I mean that's TSE levels of trolling....
Everyone I've picked this week because they were playing two games has barely played one match.
I had Lorente first sub with 8 points... Gabbiadini missed the first game but blinking was recalled to play in the second one and promptly missed a penalty so scored exactly 0 points for me over a supposed 2 games and bed-blocked out my 8 points on the bench...
Grrr...
As I said, were it not for this week, I would have won the PB fantasy league.
Thousands of words were written about the 2015 Election Campaign, how much better Labour's was, and how much more Cameron needed to get stuck in. We then saw the same in the referendum, but in both cases opinions span on a six pence the next morning.
We shall have to wait and see.
I think the thing is the people thought Lab would be getting 25% at best by now. That there hasn't been a collapse is highly unexpected.
Suspect the number of times many others are injured is small.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
Everyone should pay a Dementia Tax because everyone is equally likely to suffer from it. £5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth. This would cover most people's needs, given their life expectancy at that age.
The problem with Mrs May's Dementia Tax is that the demented have to pay it while everyone else breathes a sigh of relief.
But, is the risk just 5 % ? I think it is much higher (that is why solving the problem is so difficult).
Admittedly from the US, but Table 2’s percentages suggest that the risk is much higher, and that your risk could easily be out by an order of a magnitude.
Incidentally, there is already a dementia tax. My mother had dementia for the last 3 years of her life, and she paid fees of 30k per year for residential care with specialist dementia treatment.
However, there were people at the same care home, whose fees were paid by the Council (presumably because their capital was < 23k).
Their fees (paid on their behalf by the Council) were much less.
So, effectively, if you pay care home fees, your fees are inflated because you are subsidising those whose fees are paid by the state.
In effect, a dementia tax -- but only paid by the richer who need dementia care.
Not the richer. Just the richer who are unlucky enough to need dementia care.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
No, instead NICs should only be allowed to pay for unemployment benefit, the state pension, the NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do and so we use NIC to pay for rising demand in those areas, not income tax
Well that would be fine too. If it really is an insurance, call it that. But at the moment it isn't and hasn't been in very long time, if ever. So we may as well just call it income tax or better still abolish it and up the existing rate accordingly.
Not only has he benched my player Eriksen meaning no points for me, he's brought in Sissoko for him... I mean that's TSE levels of trolling....
Everyone I've picked this week because they were playing two games has barely played one match.
I had Lorente first sub with 8 points... Gabbiadini missed the first game but blinking was recalled to play in the second one and promptly missed a penalty so scored exactly 0 points for me over a supposed 2 games and bed-blocked out my 8 points on the bench...
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
This is a good point. Average house prices are nearly £500,000 in London and anywhere between about £240,000 and £310,000 in the rest of the Southern regions. However, this falls to more like £175,000 in the Midlands and between about £130,000 and £150,000 in the North and Wales. Those worst affected are also likely to be disproportionately concentrated in safe Conservative seats rather than marginals.
I'm still no longer so certain that "Down with the Dementia Tax, up with Free Ponies for All!" won't fly, though.
I doubt the shires will be that concerned, May and Hammond are keeping Osborne's huge inheritance tax cut last April which meant they can now pass £1 million to their children without paying a penny on inheritance tax, they would have to need an awful lot of care in their own home to lose £900 000 in care payments and for the slightly less well off while they may be hit if they require personal care if they require residential care they will be better off as they can keep £100 000 of assets rather than just the £23 000 they could keep before
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
What 'pooled risk policy'? Or are you suggesting that they should rush out a new manifesto in response to the Conservatives' one?
I believe he's referring to the one in which the 2% pay for the water to allow free swimming for all.
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
No, instead NICs should only be allowed to pay for unemployment benefit, the state pension, the NHS and social care as it was originally intended to do and so we use NIC to pay for rising demand in those areas, not income tax
Well that would be fine too. If it really is an insurance, call it that. But at the moment it isn't and hasn't been in very long time, if ever. So we may as well just call it income tax or better still abolish it and up the existing rate accordingly.
I agree if we are going to call it an insurance it should be a proper insurance
Pensioners think the dementia tax is absolute mince but sticking with May.
Phew.
£5 a week throughout a 40-year working life would raise £10,400 per person plus investment growth. If you had a 5% risk of needing institutional care it would produce a fund of £208,000 plus growth.
"The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there ain't no fund." - ~Nye Bevan
Like the News of the World you name the guilty party.
It always puzzles me why we have a separate NIC when everybody knows it is just income tax by another name. Why not just call it what it is and/or roll it into the basic rate? Nobody is worse off, and the subterfuge comes to an end.
Because NI is not progressive at the top end, so it would look like a big tax increase for some. Politicians are scared.
It could be made progressive at the top end though, to give the same effective marginal rate as people pay in the income range £50-100k, i.e. sometimes over 60%.
Some of the money could be used to give higher earners a steadily higher state pension. As happens in the US. Also didn't we have a system like this pre-Thatcher?
That, and the points above, are ok correct. But it's emotive. Those on here are engaged enough to see NI for what it is but most think it is a fund and they have "paid in" (which is why they think it's fair that it tops out).
I reckon you'd have to hide in a bigger reform than a merger with Income Tax. Some sort of wealth tax/property tax/VAT reform.
Edit - basically call it a new settlement and make direct comparisons impossible other than by income quartile, and fudge those to broadly work out.
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
What 'pooled risk policy'? Or are you suggesting that they should rush out a new manifesto in response to the Conservatives' one?
I believe he's referring to the one in which the 2% pay for the water to alloe free swimming for all.
"A Conservative government will bring forward a Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill in the next parliament to consolidate all civil and criminal prevention and protection orders and provide for a new aggravated offence if behaviour is directed at a child. "
It now gives Labour an open door to talk about their pooled risk policy, which now looks like the easier path given the draconian nature of the Tory measure.
What 'pooled risk policy'? Or are you suggesting that they should rush out a new manifesto in response to the Conservatives' one?
I believe he's referring to the one in which the 2% pay for the water to alloe free swimming for all.
Did you see the cricket in Dublin ?
Nope, ended up somewhere else on the day - shame as Clontarf CC is only 5 minutes walk. Mind you NZ won handily so just missed the drinking opportunities.
On topic... Where would Labour be polling if they had the same manifesto but a more popular leader?
It's interesting, but also incredibly similar to the debate about Labour's policies polling so well but Miliband polling not well with the voters last time. The press will destroy whoever it is, except possibly someone like Dan Jarvis.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
This is a good point. Average house prices are nearly £500,000 in London and anywhere between about £240,000 and £310,000 in the rest of the Southern regions. However, this falls to more like £175,000 in the Midlands and between about £130,000 and £150,000 in the North and Wales. Those worst affected are also likely to be disproportionately concentrated in safe Conservative seats rather than marginals.
I'm still no longer so certain that "Down with the Dementia Tax, up with Free Ponies for All!" won't fly, though.
I doubt the shires will be that concerned, May and Hammond are keeping Osborne's huge inheritance tax cut last April which meant they can now pass £1 million to their children without paying a penny on inheritance tax, they would have to need an awful lot of care in their own home to lose £900 000 in care payments and for the slightly less well off while they may be hit if they require personal care if they require residential care they will be better off as they can keep £100 000 of assets rather than just the £23 000 they could keep before
That sums it up very well. I have always accepted that both my wife and I may need care and to guarantee £100,000 is a big improvement on the £23,250.
And of course very many will not need care and the inheritance tax benefits of the conservative party policies are huge
For the politics what policy did labour and lib dems have in their manifesto on this very difficult subject.
It will be interesting to see where the UKIP voters are going now.
Surely to the Tories, in industrial container- loads ?
So, where are the votes to Labour coming from ? I did not know that the Greens started the campaign at 10%.
In the Mori poll quite obviously the Lib Dems. In reality the firming up is Lib Dem and a few of the labour kippers returning home and a squeeze on the Greens. Nothing from the Tories which is the key because they are so high.
I've been looking at the tables behind this Ipsos Mori poll. The key drivers of the firming up in Labour's position appear to be (a) the sudden re-emergence of a very heavy class divide (Tories 2:1 up with ABC1s, Con & Lab level pegging amongst C2DEs, and a sudden and inexplicable jump in Labour support amongst older voters. (EDIT: compared with other recent surveys, notably the regular YouGov numbers which I usually like to read through as they come out.) Fretting about pensions and care can't explain the suggested level of support, put at anywhere from about 25-30%, amongst those aged 45+, given that details of the Conservative manifesto only began to become clear last night.
The real shockers, though, are in the geographical splits: Tory support higher in the Midlands than the South, and Labour support higher in the South (35%?!?!) than in the Midlands. Oh, and Labour is also shown as being well adrift amongst high earners, and holding a significant lead amongst university graduates at the same time.
I know that these sub-samples aren't terribly big, but all the same: the results stink to high heaven. Not very convincing at all.
It will be interesting to see where the UKIP voters are going now.
Surely to the Tories, in industrial container- loads ?
So, where are the votes to Labour coming from ? I did not know that the Greens started the campaign at 10%.
In the Mori poll quite obviously the Lib Dems. In reality the firming up is Lib Dem and a few of the labour kippers returning home and a squeeze on the Greens. Nothing from the Tories which is the key because they are so high.
Greens still on 3%. A second seat could be on in Brighton.
It will be interesting to see where the UKIP voters are going now.
Surely to the Tories, in industrial container- loads ?
So, where are the votes to Labour coming from ? I did not know that the Greens started the campaign at 10%.
In the Mori poll quite obviously the Lib Dems. In reality the firming up is Lib Dem and a few of the labour kippers returning home and a squeeze on the Greens. Nothing from the Tories which is the key because they are so high.
Greens still on 3%. A second seat could be on in Brighton.
Bristol. I think the Greens are still being squeezed a little, they are probably a % point down over the campaign and that's to Labour.
I hope Hugh Grant realises that half of those who still go and see his films are probably Rotarians?
I'm sure at least a few of them aren't demented.
I would suggest that more than a few of the audience for his last film, Florence Foster Jenkins, were supporters of Theresa May and involved in their local Rotary Club, they will not take kindly to his calling May 'a demented little Rotarian'
I've been looking at the tables behind this Ipsos Mori poll. The key drivers of the firming up in Labour's position appear to be (a) the sudden re-emergence of a very heavy class divide (Tories 2:1 up with ABC1s, Con & Lab level pegging amongst C2DEs, and a sudden and inexplicable jump in Labour support amongst older voters. (EDIT: compared with other recent surveys, notably the regular YouGov numbers which I usually like to read through as they come out.) Fretting about pensions and care can't explain the suggested level of support, put at anywhere from about 25-30%, amongst those aged 45+, given that details of the Conservative manifesto only began to become clear last night.
The real shockers, though, are in the geographical splits: Tory support higher in the Midlands than the South, and Labour support higher in the South (35%?!?!) than in the Midlands. Oh, and Labour is also shown as being well adrift amongst high earners, and holding a significant lead amongst university graduates at the same time.
I know that these sub-samples aren't terribly big, but all the same: the results stink to high heaven. Not very convincing at all.
"Fretting about pensions and care can't explain the suggested level of support, put at anywhere from about 25-30%, amongst those aged 45+"
Yes, it can ! And after the evening news bulletins, particularly, sky and ITV [ BBC is too Tory ], it will get worse.
I've been looking at the tables behind this Ipsos Mori poll. The key drivers of the firming up in Labour's position appear to be (a) the sudden re-emergence of a very heavy class divide (Tories 2:1 up with ABC1s, Con & Lab level pegging amongst C2DEs, and a sudden and inexplicable jump in Labour support amongst older voters. (EDIT: compared with other recent surveys, notably the regular YouGov numbers which I usually like to read through as they come out.) Fretting about pensions and care can't explain the suggested level of support, put at anywhere from about 25-30%, amongst those aged 45+, given that details of the Conservative manifesto only began to become clear last night.
The real shockers, though, are in the geographical splits: Tory support higher in the Midlands than the South, and Labour support higher in the South (35%?!?!) than in the Midlands. Oh, and Labour is also shown as being well adrift amongst high earners, and holding a significant lead amongst university graduates at the same time.
I know that these sub-samples aren't terribly big, but all the same: the results stink to high heaven. Not very convincing at all.
"Fretting about pensions and care can't explain the suggested level of support, put at anywhere from about 25-30%, amongst those aged 45+"
Yes, it can ! And after the evening news bulletins, particularly, sky and ITV [ BBC is too Tory ], it will get worse.
I hope Hugh Grant realises that half of those who still go and see his films are probably Rotarians?
I'm sure at least a few of them aren't demented.
I would suggest that more than a few of the audience for his last film, Florence Foster Jenkins, were supporters of Theresa May and involved in their local Rotary Club, they will not take kindly to his calling May 'a demented little Rotarian'
If they got over their blue eyed boy getting arrested while receiving a blowy from a hooker, I'm sure they can swallow (gedddittt!!) this.
I am doubtful that many of the latest converts to the Conservative cause are going to be put off by anything with a £100,000 longstop. Conservative support might well decline a bit south of the Severn and the Wash, but they have quite a cushion there. North of that line the impact should be more muted, I'd have thought.
This is a good point. Average house prices are nearly £500,000 in London and anywhere between about £240,000 and £310,000 in the rest of the Southern regions. However, this falls to more like £175,000 in the Midlands and between about £130,000 and £150,000 in the North and Wales. Those worst affected are also likely to be disproportionately concentrated in safe Conservative seats rather than marginals.
I'm still no longer so certain that "Down with the Dementia Tax, up with Free Ponies for All!" won't fly, though.
I doubt the shires will be that concerned, May and Hammond are keeping Osborne's huge inheritance tax cut last April which meant they can now pass £1 million to their children without paying a penny on inheritance tax, they would have to need an awful lot of care in their own home to lose £900 000 in care payments and for the slightly less well off while they may be hit if they require personal care if they require residential care they will be better off as they can keep £100 000 of assets rather than just the £23 000 they could keep before
That sums it up very well. I have always accepted that both my wife and I may need care and to guarantee £100,000 is a big improvement on the £23,250.
And of course very many will not need care and the inheritance tax benefits of the conservative party policies are huge
For the politics what policy did labour and lib dems have in their manifesto on this very difficult subject.
Well we know that Burnham floated a death tax when he was Shadow Health Secretary and both Labour and the LDs opposed Osborne's big inheritance tax cut last year and McDonnell has said Labour will reduce the amount Osborne enabled couples to pass down inheritance tax free
I hope Hugh Grant realises that half of those who still go and see his films are probably Rotarians?
I'm sure at least a few of them aren't demented.
I would suggest that more than a few of the audience for his last film, Florence Foster Jenkins, were supporters of Theresa May and involved in their local Rotary Club, they will not take kindly to his calling May 'a demented little Rotarian'
If they got over their blue eyed boy getting arrested while receiving a blowy from a hooker, I'm sure they can swallow (gedddittt!!) this.
He was not indirectly insulting them when he was getting oral sex
After 2015 and 2016 one might a well consult the entrails of a chicken to find out what's going to happen in the election than give any poll much credence. Anyone's guess is about as meaningful.
Comments
https://www.google.com/search?q=statistic+how+many+uk+pensioners+need+social+care&oq=statistic+how+many+uk+pensioners+need+social+care&aqs=chrome..69i57j33.18443j0j4&client=ms-android-hms-vf-gb&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#xxri=0
Thank God I'm a horse!
Should have stuck at Oxbridge whoremonger. Can I say that on here?
Conservative and Unionist Party £4,108,000
Green Party £15,000
Labour Party £2,683,300
Liberal Democrats £180,000
UK Independence Party (UKIP) £48,000
Women's Equality Party £20,544
Its looking like a 2 hores race, all the minor party's including LD dwarfed by the big 2.
looking at the individual donations, Lab is almost all Union money and most of that is form the Union Unite. Conservative mostly individuals with a lot in the £25,000 to £50,000 range but the biggest is £900,000
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/227227/2017-UKPGE-Pre-poll-donations-and-loans-summary-document-Week-1.pdf
Poch out!
Not only has he benched my player Eriksen meaning no points for me, he's brought in Sissoko for him... I mean that's TSE levels of trolling....
I think it should be abolished.
Grrr...
Except's it's actually what I thought would happen after all the coverage of all their manifesto, rare for the Tory-Nervous Beeb, these days. The Maybot's lead is far too stonking for it to make any lasting difference, of course.
Some of the money could be used to give higher earners a steadily higher state pension. As happens in the US. Also didn't we have a system like this pre-Thatcher?
I total agree with you that that National insurance contribution should be abolished and rolled into to Income tax. I when yo think of the cost saving from administration alone that could be had it is bizarre not to.
However, who benefits, well rich people who do not work, if you have wone the lottery, or inherited a lot of money and life of the interest, then you don't pay NI as its not Pay, similarly if you are over 65 (or maybe 67 now?) you do not pay.
Curses on Poch, Mourinho, and Conte.
Con 45, Lab 37, LD 7, UKIP 2, GRN 2
http://crr.bc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/wp_2014-12.pdf
Admittedly from the US, but Table 2’s percentages suggest that the risk is much higher, and that your risk could easily be out by an order of a magnitude.
Incidentally, there is already a dementia tax. My mother had dementia for the last 3 years of her life, and she paid fees of 30k per year for residential care with specialist dementia treatment.
However, there were people at the same care home, whose fees were paid by the Council (presumably because their capital was < 23k).
Their fees (paid on their behalf by the Council) were much less.
So, effectively, if you pay care home fees, your fees are inflated because you are subsidising those whose fees are paid by the state.
In effect, a dementia tax -- but only paid by the richer who need dementia care.
Not the richer. Just the richer who are unlucky enough to need dementia care.
I reckon you'd have to hide in a bigger reform than a merger with Income Tax. Some sort of wealth tax/property tax/VAT reform.
Edit - basically call it a new settlement and make direct comparisons impossible other than by income quartile, and fudge those to broadly work out.
"A Conservative government will bring forward a Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill
in the next parliament to consolidate all civil and criminal prevention and protection
orders and provide for a new aggravated offence if behaviour is directed at a child. "
An end to smacking?
And of course very many will not need care and the inheritance tax benefits of the conservative party policies are huge
For the politics what policy did labour and lib dems have in their manifesto on this very difficult subject.
The real shockers, though, are in the geographical splits: Tory support higher in the Midlands than the South, and Labour support higher in the South (35%?!?!) than in the Midlands. Oh, and Labour is also shown as being well adrift amongst high earners, and holding a significant lead amongst university graduates at the same time.
I know that these sub-samples aren't terribly big, but all the same: the results stink to high heaven. Not very convincing at all.
http://www.thenational.ae/opinion/editorial/a-sense-of-optimism-takes-hold-in-riyadh
Yes, it can ! And after the evening news bulletins, particularly, sky and ITV [ BBC is too Tory ], it will get worse.
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/mesutozil1088/status/865273499757293570
NEW THREAD
https://twitter.com/kellytolhurst/status/865206990255120384
They were on 13 in the last MORI