politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Take Care. The implications of the Conservative policy on soci
Comments
-
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.0 -
LOLAlanbrooke said:
you can concede the bet at any time malc :-)malcolmg said:
Tut Tut Alan, you joined the great unwashed Tory liars brigade.Alanbrooke said:
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?malcolmg said:
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.tlg86 said:
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.RobD said:
Up? I've been up for hours.surbiton said:Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
PS: Ani ful nos hour sistem is grate
0 -
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.0 -
Wynonna Earp wasn't completely without merit. I largely agree about most of their output though.MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.0 -
Even for you , conflating Swinney as a Tory is a bit far outCarlottaVance said:
Scotland's scores for maths, reading and science all declined in the latest set of Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) figures.malcolmg said:
Tut Tut Alan, you joined the great unwashed Tory liars brigade.Alanbrooke said:
why would they want to ape incompetence in education ?malcolmg said:
Amazing what an opposition does for you , Tories have to ape SNP policies to try and get some votes.tlg86 said:
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.RobD said:
Up? I've been up for hours.surbiton said:Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
Education Secretary John Swinney said the results made uncomfortable reading.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-38207729
Well known unwashed Tory liar, that John Swinney......0 -
Corbyn doesn't even understand the tories social care policy, no wonder he only got E grades at a A Level
https://order-order.com/2017/05/19/jez-not-understand-tory-social-care-policy/amp/0 -
Jack, as ever it's a pleasure to exchange bon mots in such exalted company. I believe one or two of us (Icarus of this parish, Mr Fear) are still around, red tabs gleaming and enjoying fine dinners in the staff chateau well behind the front line (even if it's only the 4me cru these days).JackW said:
Another PB Old Contemptible returns ....Tabman said:
Good morning Jack and good morning PBersJackW said:Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
May I cordially wish you and your sandals good cheer in these sad days for the Whigigsh Yellow Peril. Though I hope we find the House of Tabman in good heart and health.
The HoT is in fine fettle, thanks - the carrier of the male line is off to do battle with eillow and pads and I'm settled in to watch the fun.0 -
Morning all. On topic, another fantastic header from @AlastairMeeks - as they usually are when not about Brexit
0 -
The man can't even complete his own tax return properly.kjohnw said:Corbyn doesn't even understand the tories social care policy, no wonder he only got E grades at a A Level
https://order-order.com/2017/05/19/jez-not-understand-tory-social-care-policy/amp/0 -
A couple of points. The CFP is much improved nowadays with North Sea fish stocks bouncing back. The worst overfishing happened before the UK joined the EU. The Norwegian policy is an extension of the EU one where they have common socks. Farmed fish is absolutely relevant. It's about market access that doesn't necessarily distinguish between the two. The trend is away from deep sea fishing to farmed fish for cost and stability of supply reasons. Most salmon and bass is farmed. Increasingly cod and haddock are as well.Richard_Tyndall said:
Norway has one of the best sustainable fishing policies on the planet. Whilst the EU was destroying European fisheries (and extending that destruction to West African fisheries as well) Norway managed to maintain stocks and protect hatcheries.FF43 said:
Fishing policy is complicated. The fish swim where they want and don't recognise international borders and aren't therefore British, Scottish or EU fish. The CFP is finally working well in terms of fish management. Brexit risks upsetting that. The EU substantially controls the market for fish. Scotland has done well at the expense of Norway, particularly on farmed fish, because we're in the EU. Against that we'll have the leverage that comes from an independent negotiating position. It's probably a wash, but we could end up a bit better or a lot worse.IanB2 said:Theuniondivvie said:I wonder where this headline comes from?
'Theresa May could waive rights to 95 per cent of British waters after Brexit, fishermen fear'
For the guessers, it's not the National or an SNP press release.
The Conservative party’s manifesto states the UK “will be fully responsible for the access and management of the waters where we have historically exercised sovereign control". Trawlermen believe that might refer only to the 12-mile zone guaranteed under the 1964 London Fisheries Convention, as the 200-mile zone, agreed under a United Nations convention in 1982, was never implemented because of Britain’s EU membership.
Good article: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7669/CBP-7669.pdf
Bringing in farmed fish as part of the argument is (to excuse the pun) a red herring
Whilst the EU might have a reasonable policy at the moment there is absolutely no guarantee that will continue. the CFP is a very good reason for leaving.0 -
On the Telegraph front page, an interesting editorial decision to run with a Scottish devolved matter as the main headline, whilst relegating to the last column their 'exclusive' about Corbyn and his Irish 'friends'.0
-
Hello Jon.JonWC said:
My hope also - did think about joining the rump Liberal party to get things going. Best wishes to you and all the other fossil PBers.Tabman said:
Good morning Jack and good morning PBersJackW said:Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
Yes - vacancy for an internationalist liberal party currently. We need the trots firmly in charge in perpetuity and May's nationalisr statism likewise.
Then we may get traction.0 -
And to you PfP!peter_from_putney said:
Seconded.JackW said:
Another PB Old Contemptible returns ....Tabman said:
Good morning Jack and good morning PBersJackW said:Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
As an elder statesman* I rarely venture through these portals days but a GE always encourage's me to look in.
I'm hoping for a sufficient decline in Labour fortunes to sow the seeds of their destruction in 2022 when we might get a proper Liberal Party to emerge
* - as a gen Xer I'm not yet elderly, but will never own my home (thank goodness for interest only) and will be working until I'm 80 ...
May I cordially wish you and your sandals good cheer in these sad days for the Whigigsh Yellow Peril. Though I hope we find the House of Tabman in good heart and health.0 -
It'll be great to watch three of the panel struggling to avoid saying 'I agree with David'. Certain PBers may not be so conflicted.calum said:Coburn will liven this up !
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/8658422928416440320 -
You'll learn to appreciate the Brexit-themed ones too eventually.Sandpit said:Morning all. On topic, another fantastic header from @AlastairMeeks - as they usually are when not about Brexit
0 -
Ah, SyFy is it? Slightly less interested now. There is a Polish tv version from around 2001 that you can watch, I mean it is awful... but you can still watch it.Dura_Ace said:
Wynonna Earp wasn't completely without merit. I largely agree about most of their output though.MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.0 -
It is the duty of the wealthy manchestnut said:
The man can't even fill out his own tax return properly.kjohnw said:Corbyn doesn't even understand the tories social care policy, no wonder he only got E grades at a A Level
https://order-order.com/2017/05/19/jez-not-understand-tory-social-care-policy/amp/
to give employment to the artisan
(and artisan chartered accountant)
Otoh, perhaps Tory social care policy is not intended to be understood. Not before July anyway.0 -
OT. Betting Post
You can get 1/1000 on Man City getting into the top 4 with Betfair.
A bet agaist looks like good value. If they lose on Sunday and Liverpool and Arsenal each win (by 3 goals) you have a winning bet.
There has to be a better than 1000/1 chance.0 -
Thank you to Mr Meeks for taking a look at this idea without losing his head. I can scarcely believe some are so incensed the policy is mentioned, not opposed to it but anger it's admitted, along with gentle moves to the left, that last night a few supposed right wingers were essentially saying bring on Corbyn.
Seems like they'll take a hit because they've actually admitted some tough choices, and because some on the right are so butt hurt by appeals to the left it might fester as it is notdefended robustly.
But frankly being willing to take the hit on this and winter fuel and the triple lock, is the most positive thing I've seen from may to date.
I do think the Tories need to win reasonably big for Labour to ditch Corbyn, so I hope the polls are wrong - labour are too high and will probably ruse off thus set of policies, and that's not good.0 -
Liverpool would just have to win as only 2pts behind City. Arsenal need a five goal swingRoger said:OT. Betting Post
You can get 1/1000 on Man City getting into the top 4 with Betfair.
A bet agaist looks like good value. If they lose on Sunday and Liverpool and Arsenal each win (by 3 goals) you have a winning bet.
There has to be a better than 1000/1 chance.
That said, I am seeing 1.01-1.02 for City top 4 finish, which means you can back 1/100 or lay 1/500 -
Yes that's right. It's 1/500 with Betfred now. So if City lose all they need is Arsenal to win by a maximum of 4isam said:
Liverpool would just have to win as only 2pts behind CityRoger said:OT. Betting Post
You can get 1/1000 on Man City getting into the top 4 with Betfair.
A bet agaist looks like good value. If they lose on Sunday and Liverpool and Arsenal each win (by 3 goals) you have a winning bet.
There has to be a better than 1000/1 chance.0 -
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
And is illegal anyway as per my post below.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
They can have cheesy fun stuff on occasion. But since battlestar ended what's good?MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Good fantasy, Sci fi and historical shows and movies usually requires expensive production, or it looks like a silly play.0 -
There's a febrile atmosphere as it dawns on certain Brexiteers that leaving the EU will shift the political centre of gravity in the opposite direction they expected.kle4 said:I can scarcely believe some are so incensed the policy is mentioned, not opposed to it but anger it's admitted, along with gentle moves to the left, that last night a few supposed right wingers were essentially saying bring on Corbyn.
0 -
0
-
Is this 'fake news'? Where is the scanned document from? Any ideas?bigjohnowls said:0 -
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
What are those two numbers?Sean_F said:
Labour have promised far more than could ever be recovered from those earning over £80k.daodao said:
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.tlg86 said:
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.RobD said:
Up? I've been up for hours.surbiton said:Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.0 -
Ones which they have failed to calculate.Recidivist said:
What are those two numbers?Sean_F said:
Labour have promised far more than could ever be recovered from those earning over £80k.daodao said:
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.tlg86 said:
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.RobD said:
Up? I've been up for hours.surbiton said:Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.
0 -
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....0 -
Ah, that's an interesting point. So to close the loophole, the house would need to be considered an asset for calulation of care costs, in the same way as it is for IHT calculations. That could potentially be a lot of money, for something that is technically owned by someone else.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
So how do you know which one is higher?Nigelb said:
Ones which they have failed to calculate.Recidivist said:
What are those two numbers?Sean_F said:
Labour have promised far more than could ever be recovered from those earning over £80k.daodao said:
The Labour policy is to maintain universal benefits and to recoup the money from the well-off by higher tax rates for them, e.g. 45% income tax for those with taxable income over £80k. This treats everyone equally (in terms of benefits) and is administratively simpler, avoiding the needs for means testing for individual benefits. John McDonnell made this point clearly on Radio 4 yesterday and in my opinion it is a much better approach than that of the Tories, given the increasing demands for government funding of health and social care.tlg86 said:
Yes, well you have a good reason. Unfortunately some of us are insomniacs.RobD said:
Up? I've been up for hours.surbiton said:Good Morning everyone. I can see the usual suspects are up.
On topic. Thank you very much Mr Meeks, a very informative piece. What this has shown, in my opinion, is just how f****** stupid the left are. They literally don't realise that they are lining up to the right of the Tories. And Tim Farron's contribution to the debate just showed him to be totally out of touch with reality.
My one concern about the Tories policy is that this is another policy that puts it in the government's interest for property prices to keep on rising. You can guarantee that £100,000 won't be going up over the next five years.
I don't know how many people will have noticed the difference in Tory policy on winter fuel payments in Scotland. But again, even if you're an angry Englishman, who else are you going to vote for?
I think that the uncosted/muddled Tory manifesto is a turn-off as far as manifestos go. It is a pity that the Labour party is currently led by a dim-witted incompetent fool who is not fit to be PM.0 -
They've made up their mind Corbyn is not up to it, by and large, but I'm struggling to think if a single gaffe of his in the campaign - some few may when making their choice, if the like Labour policies, no longer think of him as a dogs dinner or not prominently enough to change their vote.JackW said:
I already have my postal vote.foxinsoxuk said:
Don't postal votesgo out this week?JackW said:Good morning PBers .... and may I wish all the Conservative Collywobblers on the previous thread a speedy exit from their respective institutions.
However one must feel sorry for the severely tested medical staff having to clear up all the bodily fluids dribbling down the legs of these Tory faint hearts as the first whiff of grapeshot hits the target.
But be of good cheer because those made of stouter stuff have yet to discharge the full force of their arsenal and will do so when they see the whites of the eyes of their enemy. The storm against Jezza will break in good time and the force will be devastating.
Conservative landslide beckons .....
And Jezza is very thick skinned, the loathing that PB Tories express to the old fellow is distorting their actions. Britons like an underdog.
Britons do indeed like "an underdog" but most certainly not a dogs dinner of a political leader and party.0 -
I might tune in and watch that, unlike the other evening's reserve match.Theuniondivvie said:
It'll be great to watch three of the panel struggling to avoid saying 'I agree with David'. Certain PBers may not be so conflicted.calum said:Coburn will liven this up !
https://twitter.com/BBCScotlandNews/status/865842292841644032
Is there a market running on how often the word 'Tories' is used?
0 -
I thought that was a potential ld gain area?calum said:Snippet from NE Fife
https://twitter.com/StephenGethins/status/8655959903672401920 -
Labour and trident appears to be a bit like tories and fox hunting - they cannot seem to help making more a mess over it than they need to.0
-
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.
_________________________________________________________________
That's a lot of risk for the donor to be taking but if they have the means to pay the rent then it's a gamble some more might take - I'd hope not though. Deliberate deprivation would still be a risk and generally older clients don't like the risk of being brought under suspicion by the 'authorities'...
I do tell clients their home is just another asset in their wealth portfolio, albeit with important extra benefits!0 -
Isn't The Expanse one of theirs ? That seems fairly decent.kle4 said:
They can have cheesy fun stuff on occasion. But since battlestar ended what's good?MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Good fantasy, Sci fi and historical shows and movies usually requires expensive production, or it looks like a silly play.0 -
I think 'open to challenge by the authorities' is the language you see used.IanB2 said:
And is illegal anyway as per my post below.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
Oh yes. Not watched yet as I've started the books. Loved the first one.Nigelb said:
Isn't The Expanse one of theirs ? That seems fairly decent.kle4 said:
They can have cheesy fun stuff on occasion. But since battlestar ended what's good?MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
It's just part of the post GoT feeding frenzy wherein any shit fantasy property at all can get optioned. Even Kingkiller has been optioned FFS. I think the entertainment business' transitory obsession with fantasy bullshit is almost over as some of the GoT team are moving on to the RGB Mars project so the pendulum will be swinging back to Sci Fi for a decade or two.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Good fantasy, Sci fi and historical shows and movies usually requires expensive production, or it looks like a silly play.0 -
For residential care, it already is.Sandpit said:
Ah, that's an interesting point. So to close the loophole, the house would need to be considered an asset for calulation of care costs, in the same way as it is for IHT calculations. That could potentially be a lot of money, for something that is technically owned by someone else.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.0 -
Was it not the case that Labour were planning a rather personal moral campaign against Ms Jenkyns, aimed at social conservatives in the seat?Pulpstar said:
Do you have anything to back that up ?Morris_Dancer said:That fishing story sounds disturbing.
*sighs*
May is lucky she's against Corbyn.
As an aside, saw a little of Sky News yesterday and the political editor of the Yorkshire Post reckoned Labour believed they might win back Morley and Outwood. Their candidate, Neil Dawson (I think), has been a local councillor for many years.
Edited extra bit: for what it's worth, Labour are 5 for the seat on Betfair Sportsbook, current Con majority a little over 400. Andrea Jenkyns seems quite high profile and popular, so I think it could be close. Again.
I'd have thought Jenkins would increase her majority. Wakefield might be close if it is a good night for Labour.
Perhaps Mr Dancer can enlighten us, but it's possible that a popular Labour councillor (as opposed to Ed Balls) might be one to buck the trend in this seat.0 -
only a trivial issuekle4 said:Labour and trident appears to be a bit like tories and fox hunting - they cannot seem to help making more a mess over it than they need to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-399840700 -
Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
"A new Product"0 -
Assuming many people are like me and get a lot of news off the bbc news website, at a glance on the phone I'm surprised not to see stuff on the tory social care policies front and centre. It's had negative reaction to some degree and they love when any party gets into trouble.0
-
Heartbreaking when old comrades fall out.
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/8658529164811059200 -
Even if they don't own the house in which they live?IanB2 said:
For residential care, it already is.Sandpit said:
Ah, that's an interesting point. So to close the loophole, the house would need to be considered an asset for calulation of care costs, in the same way as it is for IHT calculations. That could potentially be a lot of money, for something that is technically owned by someone else.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.0 -
Messaging around tactical voting getting confusing !kle4 said:
I thought that was a potential ld gain area?calum said:Snippet from NE Fife
https://twitter.com/StephenGethins/status/8655959903672401920 -
Tabman's back! The Lib Dems are on manoeuvres
Good to see you posting again. You've just got a convert. I'm going to vote Lib Dem ths time.0 -
The Tory manifesto is very unclear, probably deliberately. It just says:Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.
"we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care."
The freedom to defer payments implies to me the charge system used by local councils. But could be read as the freedom to make use of a new equity release scheme that we are busy cooking up with our mates in the City.0 -
Hmm I never saw it higher than Beeb item No 9, didn't trend on twitter and its been buried by Trump's visit to Riyadh/Thornberry and FLuffy McFluffyface.kle4 said:Assuming many people are like me and get a lot of news off the bbc news website, at a glance on the phone I'm surprised not to see stuff on the tory social care policies front and centre. It's had negative reaction to some degree and they love when any party gets into trouble.
I note the minor leaders debate got tonked by Supervet, and having seen both I can quite honestly say Dr Noel Fitzpatrick is head and shoulders above them all.
It might we;; have annoyed people but not sure how much VI it will change.0 -
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it this will be like student loans in reverse? The money comes out as needed, and the lump sum is repaid with notional interest, at the end. The scheme itself will likely be run by the private sector but backed by the government.Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.0 -
Too much interest in what Mr. Pussy is up to, on his travels.kle4 said:Assuming many people are like me and get a lot of news off the bbc news website, at a glance on the phone I'm surprised not to see stuff on the tory social care policies front and centre. It's had negative reaction to some degree and they love when any party gets into trouble.
0 -
Obviously not. But if the ownership has been passed on to avoid the costs of care, however long ago, the local authority can (and very occasionally does) come for the money.Sandpit said:
Even if they don't own the house in which they live?IanB2 said:
For residential care, it already is.Sandpit said:
Ah, that's an interesting point. So to close the loophole, the house would need to be considered an asset for calulation of care costs, in the same way as it is for IHT calculations. That could potentially be a lot of money, for something that is technically owned by someone else.Richard_Tyndall said:
Yep I understand that. But if the alternative is the government takes everything over £100k on death then I can see large numbers of people taking that option.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Re your last paragraph, that only works if the parent pays market rent to the children owning the property otherwise it fails as being a gift with reservation of benefits and is still in the parents estate for IHT purposes.Richard_Tyndall said:
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.
The key point with the Tory proposals that some of today's commentary overlooks is that it is to a significant extent extending the arrangements that already apply to people in residential care (noting that these folks could benefit from the higher £100k threshold) to those receiving care at home. The big savings arise because there are three times as many people in the latter category than in care homes. And of course many people start with care at home and later go into residential care, so the value of their house comes into play much earlier.0 -
If we're talking a blended equity release product & INA product which already exist in their own right NOW & perhaps with a state underpin to the insurer to keep £100k min equity (rather than the just no negative equity guarantee that applies on pure equity release today) then that sounds quite exciting to me.rottenborough said:
The Tory manifesto is very unclear, probably deliberately. It just says:Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.
"we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care."
The freedom to defer payments implies to me the charge system used by local councils. But could be read as the freedom to make use of a new equity release scheme that we are busy cooking up with our mates in the City.
It would be another option to put in the care funding 'mix' of options we currently have open when advising clients on their care costs.0 -
https://twitter.com/realnickperry/status/865690398806638592Theuniondivvie said:Heartbreaking when old comrades fall out.
0 -
...and so touching when Scottish Indy haters and undecideds find common ground!Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/realnickperry/status/865690398806638592Theuniondivvie said:Heartbreaking when old comrades fall out.
0 -
Anti-Brexit campaign groups led by Gina Miller and Lord Mandelson have descended into infighting after splits over strategy.
Open Britain, which was set up by former Remain campaigners, and Best for Britain, which is led by Ms Miller and backed by Sir Richard Branson, are being urged to work together more closely or merge because it is feared that the fight against a hard Brexit is fragmenting.
Open Britain is dominated by experienced Westminster operators whereas Best for Britain is led by figures from business and the charity sector.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/infighting-hits-remain-campaigns-0jjr970zb0 -
0
-
LOL. If that is what it ends up as then I suspect it will go down like a cup of cold sick in the sorts of places that backbench Tory MPs reside. "notional interest" - decided by the City?Sandpit said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it this will be like student loans in reverse? The money comes out as needed, and the lump sum is repaid with notional interest, at the end. The scheme itself will likely be run by the private sector but backed by the government.Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.
It is all very well for local government to have a charge on a property, or a person to make their own decision to go for equity release. But to force the latter, essentially by removing the former as an option will cause merry hell.
As I have warned repeatedly, and no doubt boringly (sorry chaps), this is a disaster waiting to explode for Tories in next Parliament.0 -
We don't know - maybe - but currently it's going on with local authorities doing it but there's a bit of a postcode lottery as to when you see it happening.Sandpit said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it this will be like student loans in reverse? The money comes out as needed, and the lump sum is repaid with notional interest, at the end. The scheme itself will likely be run by the private sector but backed by the government.Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.0 -
FFSScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/8658483214992506880 -
Hello Roger.Roger said:Tabman's back! The Lib Dems are on manoeuvres
Good to see you posting again. You've just got a convert. I'm going to vote Lib Dem ths time.
Far too many people in all parties have forgotten that Blair won 3 elections from the centre with a passable simulacrum of economic and social liberalism.0 -
From discussion yesterday, someone suggested majorities of 76 and 162 were about equally likely. If you can take the average of those, it's 119.peter_from_putney said:Lest Tory supporters on here are starting to panic, it's probably worth pointing out that Ladbrokes currently go 400.5 Tory seats with their over/under 5/6 "You Choose" fulcrum bet. This is just about as high as it's been and as we punters know only too well, it's not very often that Shadsy, the Magic Sign's political guru, gets things seriously wrong ..... after all he has his legendary Christmas bonus to consider at times like this.
This tipping point is equivalent to a Tory majority of 150 seats.
The Tories *do* have a history of getting majorities more often than Labour but not such extreme ones. Thatcher in 1983 was the most extreme (pun intended): 143. Attlee won by 145 and Blair won by 179 or so.
The poll movement before 8 June might well be from 119 towards 150 once they start attacking Corbyn on defence. I'm not sure betting on Tory seats over/under 400 has any value, although I think right now that <400 looks more likely.
By contrast, I took the opportunity (sadly) to bet on the Lib.Dems gaining fewer seats than forecast.
I may look further at Baxter to see if 150 is more credible than I thought.0 -
FFsake noone wants HIPS backScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/8658483214992506880 -
OT: I have just perused rightmove.co.uk to see the median value of houses for sale in certain marginals and bellwether seats.
Bridgend and Copeland are between £120k-£140k. Halifax, Wakefield, Southport, Nuneaton and Corby all come in at under £180k. Even hyper-marginal Bolsover is £130k.
£100k asset protection is guaranteeing a majority stake in case of a care requirement.0 -
I think the point is that even the crappy networks are trying to move up market, as they have seen how quality programming has driven the growth of eg Netflix and Amazon Prime. Teams of writers are mobile, and the budget is the clue.kle4 said:
Oh yes. Not watched yet as I've started the books. Loved the first one.Nigelb said:
Isn't The Expanse one of theirs ? That seems fairly decent.kle4 said:
They can have cheesy fun stuff on occasion. But since battlestar ended what's good?MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Good fantasy, Sci fi and historical shows and movies usually requires expensive production, or it looks like a silly play.
Of course, it could easily still be crap, but I'd put the odds slightly better than 5%.
The other notable is the the steady improvement in CG. The first series of Black Sails was almost laughable in places; by the last, seamless (though increase in budget might well also explain that) - fortunately the writing and cast were good enough to overlook that.0 -
I have it on good authority that "HIPS" remains a red flag for anyone else in government, ergo, not going to happen.Scrapheap_as_was said:
FFSScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/8658483214992506880 -
Some numpty on here was saying this was a disproportionate death tax on the north given their lower property prices to the South and Jeremy Corbyn should jump all over the £100k to save seats up there.chestnut said:OT: I have just perused rightmove.co.uk to see the median value of houses for sale in certain marginals and bellwether seats.
Bridgend and Copeland are between £120k-£140k. Halifax, Wakefield, Nuneaton and Corby all come in at under £180k. Even hyper-marginal Bolsover is £130k.
£100k asset protection is guaranteeing a majority stake in case of a care requirement.
I don't think it was Diane Abbott but it might as well have been.0 -
With student loans, the interest is regulated and the contracts students sign are with "The Student Loans Company", a quango.rottenborough said:
LOL. If that is what it ends up as then I suspect it will go down like a cup of cold sick in the sorts of places that backbench Tory MPs reside. "notional interest" - decided by the City?Sandpit said:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I see it this will be like student loans in reverse? The money comes out as needed, and the lump sum is repaid with notional interest, at the end. The scheme itself will likely be run by the private sector but backed by the government.Scrapheap_as_was said:
yup - we're looking here at both being an option - as it is now of course when it comes to funding residential care.rottenborough said:
If they are referring to equity release plans, the market for these will potentially be massively expanded as individuals needing care who don't have cash but do have a house will be forced to go for these products.Scrapheap_as_was said:
what a load of complete bollocks. They are just referring to equity release products today where people can do exactly that with their homes if they wish and use a provider who offers a no negative equity guarantee.....bigjohnowls said:
When advising on these, it's not the people doing the equity release you worry about for complaints, it's their reduced/disinherited beneficiaries you need to check with....
iirc currently the local authority can have a 'charge' on your house to pay for the care received and this is activated at death.
There is a world of difference between the local council having a charge on your house and an insurance company.
It is all very well for local government to have a charge on a property, or a person to make their own decision to go for equity release. But to force the latter, essentially by removing the former as an option will cause merry hell.
As I have warned repeatedly, and no doubt boringly (sorry chaps), this is a disaster waiting to explode for Tories in next Parliament.
In other words the scheme is regulated and notional, rather than run in a mishmashed and variable way by local authorities.0 -
If this Tory 100k scheme must be done, it should absolubtely be done on a cost neutral basis by the government.
I don't trust "equity release" providers in the private sector one bit, and have a hunch that they get way more flesh than a normal remortgage on a property would earn. Everything about the way they advertise on daytime TV screams rip off to my mind.0 -
But the gift has to be genuine. You can't hand over property and then live in it for life. Anything less than full market rent nullifies the gift ( and lets face it rightly so. )Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.0
-
Why? I think, that if they come with a survey which gives purchasers rights against the survey providers (i.e. The third party rights act is applied) then it will significantly improve the transactional efficiency of the housing market. That was I recall dropped first time round rendering the scheme worthless.Pulpstar said:
FFsake noone wants HIPS backScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/865848321499250688
Am I missing something?0 -
“We can’t lose sight of the fact that there aren’t enough transactions at the moment. We don’t want to do anything that makes people think twice about putting their homes on the market.”Pulpstar said:
FFsake noone wants HIPS backScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/865848321499250688
On the other hand, if there aren't enough transactions then barriers to people putting their homes on the market are one way to prevent price discovery.0 -
Arf. Remarkable how quickly that meme has taken root....people talk about it on the doorstep.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Some numpty on here was saying this was a disproportionate death tax on the north given their lower property prices to the South and Jeremy Corbyn should jump all over the £100k to save seats up there.chestnut said:OT: I have just perused rightmove.co.uk to see the median value of houses for sale in certain marginals and bellwether seats.
Bridgend and Copeland are between £120k-£140k. Halifax, Wakefield, Nuneaton and Corby all come in at under £180k. Even hyper-marginal Bolsover is £130k.
£100k asset protection is guaranteeing a majority stake in case of a care requirement.
I don't think it was Diane Abbott but it might as well have been.
0 -
Worth remembering of course that Season 1 of Game of Thrones was popular, but not explosively poplar, and I'm sure it was expensive but managable in budget, since the way the books are written and the way it builds, they didn't need to show huge battles and the like which are hideously expensive - I guess the key is set the stage well in first seasons, get popular enough to earn budget increases, then you're able to go wild later.Nigelb said:
I think the point is that even the crappy networks are trying to move up market, as they have seen how quality programming has driven the growth of eg Netflix and Amazon Prime. Teams of writers are mobile, and the budget is the clue.kle4 said:
Oh yes. Not watched yet as I've started the books. Loved the first one.Nigelb said:
Isn't The Expanse one of theirs ? That seems fairly decent.kle4 said:
They can have cheesy fun stuff on occasion. But since battlestar ended what's good?MaxPB said:
It will be if it's a SyFy production. Their shows are all horrible.Dura_Ace said:
One of IMB's culture short stories got optioned but it never happened. SyFy have a Ringworld series in development which might not be completely horrible.Pulpstar said:
Perhaps a "culture" series ?Dura_Ace said:
95% of all television is terrible. 99% or more of film or television properties derived from game franchises are terrible. Simple logic dictates that Witcher TV will almost certainly be terrible.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Ace, you're a grumpy turnip. Have you considered improving your mood by reading my excellent and free short story, Phoenix Rising, currently the #1 Asian Myths story?
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Phoenix-Rising-Wandering-Roaming-Tiger-ebook/dp/B071LCLJYY/
.
It could only be done justice by HBO with budgets to match/exceed Game of Thrones I think.
Good fantasy, Sci fi and historical shows and movies usually requires expensive production, or it looks like a silly play.
Of course, it could easily still be crap, but I'd put the odds slightly better than 5%.
The other notable is the the steady improvement in CG. The first series of Black Sails was almost laughable in places; by the last, seamless (though increase in budget might well also explain that) - fortunately the writing and cast were good enough to overlook that.
I'm always optimistic. There's only so many good writers and actors to go around, so of course most stuff is bad overall, but there's a great deal of fantastic television out there in recent years.0 -
Even at market rent it is illegal if done to avoid the costs of care.View_From_Cumbria said:
But the gift has to be genuine. You can't hand over property and then live in it for life. Anything less than full market rent nullifies the gift ( and lets face it rightly so. )Richard_Tyndall said:Terrifically well informed and well balanced article by Alistair. We may continue to vehemently disagree below the line but these thread headers just keep getting better.
I think the thrust of the Tory plans are absolutely right (and I say that as someone who would ideally like to leave house and inheritance to the kids and would lose a lot by this policy). We managed to keep my grandmother in her own home until she died of a stroke at 93 back in 2014. My mother, sister and I with our families made sure she could stay in her own home which is what she wanted more than anything. From the age of around 88 we would move her into my mothers house each winter so that we could pay extra attention to her in cold or bad weather. I am convinced that by keeping her in her own home and with her family we got at least an extra 5 years of life with her.
I do believe that families bear a huge responsibility for aged relations. My parents looked after me for the first 18 years of my life (and longer) and I think it is the least I can do to look after them as they grow infirm. Obviously there are circumstances where that can't happen but as long as they remain relatively well I believe children do have a responsibility for the welfare of their parents.
My concerns about the Tory proposals are purely practical and involve implementation. We already see adverts on TV for cashing in your house to a company in return for a lump sum whilst you stay in it until you die. I can see that becoming very popular and a potential problem for the Government if people know they risk seeing any potential inheritance for their children disappearing.
The other issue is that aging parents whilst still not suffering from infirmity might choose to gift their property to children whilst retaining a nominal amount of the value and a right to continue to live in it - a private form of the commercial schemes I have referred to. I believe currently that as long as you don't die within 7 years of a gift it does not count for inheritance tax purposes? We could well see a lot more people gifting to their children much earlier to circumvent the government scheme.0 -
Mr. Roger, that would sound intriguing but I can only see an Exchange lay at 50/1 (1.02).
Mr. Tabman, welcome back.
Mr. Sandpit, not received anything from Dawson, as yet.0 -
Asking her is she's just Nasty Nigel Farage but in a skirt, over and over again, is a pretty good way to get her to stand up. Most serious politicians would do the same.Scott_P said:
https://twitter.com/realnickperry/status/865690398806638592Theuniondivvie said:Heartbreaking when old comrades fall out.
0 -
Absolutely.Pulpstar said:If this Tory 100k scheme must be done, it should absolubtely be done on a cost neutral basis by the government.
I don't trust "equity release" providers in the private sector one bit, and have a hunch that they get way more flesh than a normal remortgage on a property would earn. Everything about the way they advertise on daytime TV screams rip off to my mind.0 -
CarlottaVance said:
Anti-Brexit campaign groups led by Gina Miller and Lord Mandelson have descended into infighting after splits over strategy.
Open Britain, which was set up by former Remain campaigners, and Best for Britain, which is led by Ms Miller and backed by Sir Richard Branson, are being urged to work together more closely or merge because it is feared that the fight against a hard Brexit is fragmenting.
Open Britain is dominated by experienced Westminster operators whereas Best for Britain is led by figures from business and the charity sector.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/infighting-hits-remain-campaigns-0jjr970zb
I thought Scott_P would have brought that to our attention....0 -
I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k0
-
It was genuinely funny, not merely that she got her numbers muddled but how she tried to bluff her way through.MarqueeMark said:
Arf. Remarkable how quickly that meme has taken root....people talk about it on the doorstep.Scrapheap_as_was said:
Some numpty on here was saying this was a disproportionate death tax on the north given their lower property prices to the South and Jeremy Corbyn should jump all over the £100k to save seats up there.chestnut said:OT: I have just perused rightmove.co.uk to see the median value of houses for sale in certain marginals and bellwether seats.
Bridgend and Copeland are between £120k-£140k. Halifax, Wakefield, Nuneaton and Corby all come in at under £180k. Even hyper-marginal Bolsover is £130k.
£100k asset protection is guaranteeing a majority stake in case of a care requirement.
I don't think it was Diane Abbott but it might as well have been.0 -
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-deputy-mayor-owen-lister-558677
Definitely not the Nasty Party0 -
Macmillan got a majority of 100 in 1959, Wilson of 96 in 1966 and Thatcher of 102 in 1987, I think May is now looking at a majority in that area rather than the close to 150+ Attlee got in 1945, Thatcher got in 1983 and Blair got in 1997 and 2001rural_voter said:
From discussion yesterday, someone suggested majorities of 76 and 162 were about equally likely. If you can take the average of those, it's 119.peter_from_putney said:Lest Tory supporters on here are starting to panic, it's probably worth pointing out that Ladbrokes currently go 400.5 Tory seats with their over/under 5/6 "You Choose" fulcrum bet. This is just about as high as it's been and as we punters know only too well, it's not very often that Shadsy, the Magic Sign's political guru, gets things seriously wrong ..... after all he has his legendary Christmas bonus to consider at times like this.
This tipping point is equivalent to a Tory majority of 150 seats.
The Tories *do* have a history of getting majorities more often than Labour but not such extreme ones. Thatcher in 1983 was the most extreme (pun intended): 143. Attlee won by 145 and Blair won by 179 or so.
The poll movement before 8 June might well be from 119 towards 150 once they start attacking Corbyn on defence. I'm not sure betting on Tory seats over/under 400 has any value, although I think right now that <400 looks more likely.
By contrast, I took the opportunity (sadly) to bet on the Lib.Dems gaining fewer seats than forecast.
I may look further at Baxter to see if 150 is more credible than I thought. </p>0 -
One other thing that can be said is that this is no longer a boring election. 2001 it isn't.Scott_P said:@DPJHodges: 19 days to go. Think we are entering the "Tory campaign in crisis" period of the election.
0 -
Morning Morris Dancer. We've received some stuff from Dawson. No mention of Corbyn and barely any of Labour's policies. He seems to be fighting a personal and locally focused campaign.0
-
Postal vote arrived.0
-
The buyer's solicitor and mortgage company wanted their own survey and didn't trust the seller's survey. Hence the seller's survey was a complete waste of time and money.matt said:
Why? I think, that if they come with a survey which gives purchasers rights against the survey providers (i.e. The third party rights act is applied) then it will significantly improve the transactional efficiency of the housing market. That was I recall dropped first time round rendering the scheme worthless.Pulpstar said:
FFsake noone wants HIPS backScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/865848321499250688
Am I missing something?0 -
Ruth not only highlighting the preservation of Winter Fuel for all in Scotland - but also highlighting the increased spending on NHS in England from the savings will result in an increased Barnett consequential to Scotland ! - She's starting to sound and think a bit like SNP !!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15298028.Scottish_Tory_manifesto_versus_UK_party_s_proposals/0 -
How many houses in UK are under £100K? Terrace house in Hull - yeh probably. But vast swathes of Midlands and North have places where all houses are in a range more like £175 - £280K.HYUFD said:I agree, this will primarily impact voters in the South (and of course even the winter fuel allowance will be means tested so will not affect the less well off). As for assets of course last April the Tories took all the estates of those voters in the South out of inheritance tax (a cut which Labour has said it will largely reverse) so most voters even in the South will still be better off in terms of assets except the minority who need care. However even those who need care will be better off if they have to have residential care as care will only be reclaimed from assets above £100k including their house whereas before they were reclaimed from assets above £23k including their house. So the only voters this policy really affects are well off voters in the South who will need personal care and will now have their house included in the cost of that assessment over £100k
0 -
Ah, HIPS. Gove proving that idiotic policy proposals appear to be contagious.
Still, let's regulate the interweb with necessary hashtags!
*sighs*0 -
Gove does want to be a minister again?Morris_Dancer said:Ah, HIPS. Gove proving that idiotic policy proposals appear to be contagious.
Still, let's regulate the interweb with necessary hashtags!
*sighs*0 -
Yes. The buyer's survey is the only one that needs to happen when you sell a house.Sandpit said:
The buyer's solicitor and mortgage company wanted their own survey and didn't trust the seller's survey. Hence the seller's survey was a complete waste of time and money.matt said:
Why? I think, that if they come with a survey which gives purchasers rights against the survey providers (i.e. The third party rights act is applied) then it will significantly improve the transactional efficiency of the housing market. That was I recall dropped first time round rendering the scheme worthless.Pulpstar said:
FFsake noone wants HIPS backScott_P said:The Tories are just taking the piss now
https://twitter.com/politicshome/status/865848321499250688
Am I missing something?
Think about this logically !0
