I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
It certainly adds a frisson of excitement to the "Trust Theresa May as a safe pair of hands to safeguard Britain's future" narrative.
Indeed. However, the alternative is JC of Islington.
There's always the Rev. Mr Farron. But that would take a miracle.
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
The £72k cap is not what it seems.
Reposting this link for anyone who missed it and is interested to know more about current care funding policy.
Yes, which is now gone presumably as that was a Cameron-Osborne policy and those are as popular as Black Death amongst May's top team.
So, if she ditches the whole thing by 7pm tonight then we are left with existing system with no cap and that is worse. As the Saga link points out Councils have been getting up to all sorts with courts and forced house sales. Frankly, I had no idea about this side of things. I assumed councils were putting charges on property and adding interest but not selling while people are still alive.
Now that the polls are closer (I am quite cynical on whether such a shift has taken place or more likely samples have been tweaked for a story). Maybe Labours policies will get more of an examination. I remember just before the General Election reading about a wealth tax where the shadow chancellor was taped advocating what a radical Labour government would do.
I am really interested in Labour's plans to shape the post Brexit UK economy up, hopefully this change in the polls will mean I become more enlightened as to their secret agenda.
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
I am sorry to hear that - my father in law had severe dementia, did not know my wife, and the suffering was just horrible.
But the point is that Theresa May has increased the equity from £23,250 to £100,000 together with lifetime home tenure so it is a big improvement on the present situation
I see the latest Facebook propaganda from Labour is that their figures not only add up, but they have billions in headroom just in case somethings come in a bit more expensive.
No problem - put corporation tax up to 30%
For election purposes. Corporation Tax is the best. Does not hurt anyone personally. What happens after the election we will see.
The Tories also promised to rid of the deficit by 2015. Now they would not do so until 2022 at the earliest despite, their claim, the highest growth rates in Europe.
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
The £72k cap is not what it seems.
Reposting this link for anyone who missed it and is interested to know more about current care funding policy.
Yes, which is now gone presumably as that was a Cameron-Osborne policy and those are as popular as Black Death amongst May's top team.
So, if she ditches the whole thing by 7pm tonight then we are left with existing system with no cap and that is worse. As the Saga link points out Councils have been getting up to all sorts with courts and forced house sales. Frankly, I had no idea about this side of things. I assumed councils were putting charges on property and adding interest but not selling while people are still alive.
Theresa May has done a great service by improving a dreadful system and hopefully people will see this for what it is - a practical solution to a serious problem
I have witnessed the distress of many who had their homes forcibly sold while alive. It was and is unacceptable
Now that the polls are closer (I am quite cynical on whether such a shift has taken place or more likely samples have been tweaked for a story). Maybe Labours policies will get more of an examination. I remember just before the General Election reading about a wealth tax where the shadow chancellor was taped advocating what a radical Labour government would do.
I am really interested in Labour's plans to shape the post Brexit UK economy up, hopefully this change in the polls will mean I become more enlightened as to their secret agenda.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
If that's true then you should be better informed then.
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
It certainly adds a frisson of excitement to the "Trust Theresa May as a safe pair of hands to safeguard Britain's future" narrative.
She is woeful. The Home Secretary who presided over record NON-EU immigration and whose biggest claim to fame is that she will control immigration. Pathetic ! Hapless.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
SeanT Not just on this issue I have to admit you do seem to get many of your gut feeling correct.The problem with many of the party hacks on here from all sides, is they just follow whatever the leader says.For example if May changes her mind on this so will they.
There is only one party with momentum* on that graph.
*Pun intended.
I got a text message today...
"Hi Linda, this is Pete from Momentum. Hope you don't mind me contacting you. This Monday May 22 is voter reg deadline. Can you commit to registering 5 people to vote?"
With a link to a gov.uk website
Who's Linda???
LOL, maybe someone signed you up to Momentum.
It is worth mentioning the serious point though, to all of us who are visiting friends and family today, remind them that the voter registration deadline is tomorrow.
No matter which party we support, we should all agree that a high turnout is good for democracy.
In terms of betting, we need to start seriously considering the remote possibility of a Hung Parliament, and even the outlandish, absurd outcome that is a Corbyn victory.
You can get 10/1 against a Hung Parliament. Even though the odds have shortened - for reasons we all know - to me, that still looks like VALUE.
Another 3 point swing to Corbyn, and it's no Overall Majority. Is that really a 10/1 shot?
No I doubt it. If anything the government will recover in the next few days once they U-turn on a few of the bad policies. Everything that has been done can be undone. Boris was clearly preparing the ground for it today on house stealing, I expect it to come for Northern WFA soon as well. That will take the sting out if it and see 15-17 point leads again.
But that will completely wreck Theresa's 'Strong and Stable' narrative. What will she have left? Not the policies which have proven either toxic or Miliband-esque and the jury's still out on Brexit. Theresa's only selling point will be that she didn't cosy up to Sinn Féin a few decades back. Whoopy doo...
They won't be actual U-turns but clarifications of existing policies or announcing royal commissions to kick them into the long grass and having a very high threshold for the means test for WFA plus exemption based on climate data for the North. Together it will be enough to reversethe poll decline but just about hold onto strong and stable, but also move the narrative on from this stuff back to Brexit where they are on much safer ground.
I think is a halfwit, and about as agile and cunning as a salted slug.
Fantastic.
Calm down dear, Maggie would have been happy with these leads during her election campaigns.
She ain't no Maggie. You can't be happy with that manifesto. Racial pay audit? Really???
Puke.
The racial pay audit is stupidity, agreed. But, May is greatly preferable to her opponents.
As a matter of interest, is Racial Pay Audit in the Labour Party manifesto ? Or, the Greens ?
I see the latest Facebook propaganda from Labour is that their figures not only add up, but they have billions in headroom just in case somethings come in a bit more expensive.
No problem - put corporation tax up to 30%
For election purposes. Corporation Tax is the best. Does not hurt anyone personally.
And then every company puts prices up to claw back their own money.
I see the latest Facebook propaganda from Labour is that their figures not only add up, but they have billions in headroom just in case somethings come in a bit more expensive.
No problem - put corporation tax up to 30%
For election purposes. Corporation Tax is the best. Does not hurt anyone personally. What happens after the election we will see.
The Tories also promised to rid of the deficit by 2015. Now they would not do so until 2022 at the earliest despite, their claim, the highest growth rates in Europe.
That is in summary, election promises.
Only someone from the left can say corporation tax does not hurt anyone. It restricts investment, reduces pension investment, induces tax avoidance and loses many jobs as firms relocate, and in the context of Brexit flee in their thousands to Europe devasting our economy
As a matter of interest, is Racial Pay Audit in the Labour Party manifesto ? Or, the Greens ?
There is equally nutty shit like LGBT anti-smoking ...and of course one of the most nutty of all, the ban on driverless trains. We can't be having any of that technological progress around these parts...is something you expect to hear in Amish communities, not from a major UK political party.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Now that the polls are closer (I am quite cynical on whether such a shift has taken place or more likely samples have been tweaked for a story). Maybe Labours policies will get more of an examination. I remember just before the General Election reading about a wealth tax where the shadow chancellor was taped advocating what a radical Labour government would do.
I am really interested in Labour's plans to shape the post Brexit UK economy up, hopefully this change in the polls will mean I become more enlightened as to their secret agenda.
Do not worry. LABOUR CANNOT WIN.
Probably not but it is interesting to see what they advocate. It reminds me of 2010 and the Clegg bounce in that the LD did not shift their seat targeting and leader visits to reflect the poll surge. Labour is not suddenly shifting where they send Corbyn and the other Labour big hitters either. My view is pretty much the campaign will end in opinion polling terms pretty much as it started due to manipulation of the polls that seems to occur at every election in the last 20 years.
There is only one party with momentum* on that graph.
*Pun intended.
I got a text message today...
"Hi Linda, this is Pete from Momentum. Hope you don't mind me contacting you. This Monday May 22 is voter reg deadline. Can you commit to registering 5 people to vote?"
With a link to a gov.uk website
Who's Linda???
LOL, maybe someone signed you up to Momentum.
It is worth mentioning the serious point though, to all of us who are visiting friends and family today, remind them that the voter registration deadline is tomorrow.
No matter which party we support, we should all agree that a high turnout is good for democracy.
As a matter of interest, is Racial Pay Audit in the Labour Party manifesto ? Or, the Greens ?
There is equally nutty shit like LGBT anti-smoking ...and of course one of the most nutty of all, the ban on driverless trains. We can't be having any of that technological progress around these parts...is something you expect to hear in Amish communities, not from a major UK political party.
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
If that's true then you should be better informed then.
It is true, I just have a difference of opinion and believe it should be a pooled resource.It has been a Very difficult situation especially for my wife to cope with.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
Maybe, but the way you have public meltdowns is something to behold. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Bizarre does not even begin to explain it.
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
The £72k cap is not what it seems.
Reposting this link for anyone who missed it and is interested to know more about current care funding policy.
Thanks good link. 72k is a misnomer then more like twice that in reality? However, what a technical knotty subject- hence brainless to raise it three weeks before an election when there was no need to and at the same time you're amending triple locks (rightly) and making a hash of not explaining who won't lose out from charging (again in principle rightly) WFA.
I agree in terms of presentation and in allowing the narrative to get away from them. Perhaps they miscalculated the degree of understanding of the current situation regarding care home funding. It is clear from posters here that unless you have been confronted with the reality very little thought is given to it.
It had to be in the manifesto for this election to stand any chance of the subject being debated in the next parliament. It will cost some votes and possibly seats but if the subject is now entering the wider public consciousness then that is a good thing. Perhaps better proposals will be brought forward but sustainable funding for social care has to stay on the agenda.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
The Conservatives are making strong gains in England’s rust belt, the areas that lost much of their industry during Margaret Thatcher’s governments in the 1980s.
An analysis of the local election results earlier this month also shows the Tories gaining the most ground, compared with the other parties, in the parts of England that still have the highest percentage of manufacturing workers.
As a matter of interest, is Racial Pay Audit in the Labour Party manifesto ? Or, the Greens ?
There is equally nutty shit like LGBT anti-smoking ...and of course one of the most nutty of all, the ban on driverless trains. We can't be having any of that technological progress around these parts...is something you expect to hear in Amish communities, not from a major UK political party.
That could be popular too !
And of course Jahadi Jez and mates will have a good go at killing off Uber, Deliveroo and Amazon same day delivery...don't tell me, that will be dead popular too.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Where have you been the last 3 days ? The £23k DID NOT INCLUDE the VALUE of your HOUSE. Now, with £100k, IT DOES !
Geddit !
The £23k certainly did, if you had to go into a care home. And if you suffer from dementia, you're likely to go into a care home, unless you die first.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
Short answer: because retiring with nothing but the basic state pension and pension credit to live on wouldn't be a whole lot of fun.
In defence of the new policy,
1. If you are able to save but are unable to buy a property then the new proposals are an unalloyed benefit. You will keep your savings up to a value of £100,000, which is more than four times the sum currently exempted.
2. If you can afford to buy property then it is still well worth doing so. Buying a property is often less expensive than renting, and certainly gives one both greater freedom and security of tenure. Moreover, if you own a house then you can extract value from it when you retire (through equity release or by selling up and downsizing,) and blow the proceeds on holidays and a more comfortable lifestyle, rather than having to work until you drop to pay your landlord and having nothing left to show for it at the end. And who still wants to be parting with rent out of their pension if they can avoid it?
3. This isn't a tax. It's asking people with means to take care of themselves. What would fall under the definition of "regressive" taxation would be asking the general taxpayer to cough up quite a lot more to cover the creation of some kind of national care service or national care insurance scheme to give everyone "free" care, just so that those wealthy enough to have accumulated estates can pass them on intact. Now, I'm not enamoured of confiscatory policies or punishing the wealthy, but nor do I think that it is unreasonable to ask people who can afford to pay for care to do so. It's hard luck on them, but such is life. The alternative is a levelled out system of state provision, as with the NHS, which is paid for by everybody, including those who will never hope to be in receipt of fat inheritances themselves.
4. Please remember that somebody with the wherewithal to purchase a property has probably enjoyed a higher standard of living during their lives than somebody who has never been able to afford to and that, under these proposals, they won't be made to part with their property until they are a corpse and, therefore, no longer in need of it. Again, asking the poor to cough up more tax to guarantee the inheritances of the heirs of the wealthy isn't very progressive.
5. Why should the money of savers be treated as an asset to be used towards care, whilst the value of property remains mysteriously exempt? Again, if we can ask people with savings, as we have been doing for donkey's years, to part with them above a certain threshold, then why not ask the same of the owners of housing?
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
I am sorry to hear that - my father in law had severe dementia, did not know my wife, and the suffering was just horrible.
But the point is that Theresa May has increased the equity from £23,250 to £100,000 together with lifetime home tenure so it is a big improvement on the present situation
I agree it is fairer. And presumably they have done an actuarial calculation which indicates that including the house will raise more than increasing the threshold will lose. Presumably.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
In terms of betting, we need to start seriously considering the remote possibility of a Hung Parliament, and even the outlandish, absurd outcome that is a Corbyn victory.
You can get 10/1 against a Hung Parliament. Even though the odds have shortened - for reasons we all know - to me, that still looks like VALUE.
Another 3 point swing to Corbyn, and it's no Overall Majority. Is that really a 10/1 shot?
No I doubt it. If anything the government will recover in the next few days once they U-turn on a few of the bad policies. Everything that has been done can be undone. Boris was clearly preparing the ground for it today on house stealing, I expect it to come for Northern WFA soon as well. That will take the sting out if it and see 15-17 point leads again.
But that will completely wreck Theresa's 'Strong and Stable' narrative. What will she have left? Not the policies which have proven either toxic or Miliband-esque and the jury's still out on Brexit. Theresa's only selling point will be that she didn't cosy up to Sinn Féin a few decades back. Whoopy doo...
They won't be actual U-turns but clarifications of existing policies or announcing royal commissions to kick them into the long grass and having a very high threshold for the means test for WFA plus exemption based on climate data for the North. Together it will be enough to reversethe poll decline but just about hold onto strong and stable, but also move the narrative on from this stuff back to Brexit where they are on much safer ground.
I think is a halfwit, and about as agile and cunning as a salted slug.
Fantastic.
Calm down dear, Maggie would have been happy with these leads during her election campaigns.
She ain't no Maggie. You can't be happy with that manifesto. Racial pay audit? Really???
Puke.
The racial pay audit is stupidity, agreed. But, May is greatly preferable to her opponents.
As a matter of interest, is Racial Pay Audit in the Labour Party manifesto ? Or, the Greens ?
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Where have you been the last 3 days ? The £23k DID NOT INCLUDE the VALUE of your HOUSE. Now, with £100k, IT DOES !
Geddit !
The £23k didn't include your house... as long as you were living in it.
For very many people requiring day-to-day care, they will be forced to move out of their own homes.
This policy ensures tenure of you home for life
I meant the old system. But yes, the policy is designed to ensure that no-one should have to move out of their home solely because of care costs (although not all costs are care costs).
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
It certainly adds a frisson of excitement to the "Trust Theresa May as a safe pair of hands to safeguard Britain's future" narrative.
Indeed. However, the alternative is JC of Islington.
There's always the Rev. Mr Farron. But that would take a miracle.
No, it would require a pact with the Devil....
EDIT: And Farron has promised us he won't go into coalition with anybody....
I see the latest Facebook propaganda from Labour is that their figures not only add up, but they have billions in headroom just in case somethings come in a bit more expensive.
No problem - put corporation tax up to 30%
For election purposes. Corporation Tax is the best. Does not hurt anyone personally. What happens after the election we will see.
The Tories also promised to rid of the deficit by 2015. Now they would not do so until 2022 at the earliest despite, their claim, the highest growth rates in Europe.
That is in summary, election promises.
Only someone from the left can say corporation tax does not hurt anyone. It restricts investment, reduces pension investment, induces tax avoidance and loses many jobs as firms relocate, and in the context of Brexit flee in their thousands to Europe devasting our economy
I run a company with a turnover rof £30m. What do you do ?
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
Maybe, but the way you have public meltdowns is something to behold. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Bizarre does not even begin to explain it.
You should've been around here in 2014 when it looked like the Scots were going to break up the Union - Sean's "meltdown" this weekend doesn't come close to that...
Im hearing there will probably be a statement from CCHQ on the Social care poljcy later today...!!
Good. Extends the discussion into the next news cycle.
What was this election supposed to be about? Oh, Brexit. So last month.
Will the lack of discussion of Brexit help the LibDems?
No. I was mistaken. I thought the Lib Dems' USP as the anti-Brexit party would help them. It looks like we're back to completely two-party politics now.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
Maybe, but the way you have public meltdowns is something to behold. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Bizarre does not even begin to explain it.
You shouldn't been around here in 2014 when it looked like the Scots were going to break up the Union - Sean's "meltdown" this weekend doesn't come close to that...
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
Maybe, but the way you have public meltdowns is something to behold. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Bizarre does not even begin to explain it.
You're fairly new here. This is what I do. Sometimes to entertain others. Mostly to entertain myself. Occasionally I really mean it: like this time.
Yesterday, you were frothing at the mouth in fear of a Corbyn government, today you were frothing at the mouth in fear of a May government. It's not really entertainment, but it is certainly interesting, indeed fascinating if you're a student of psychology or psychiatry. I don't begin to understand what goes on in your mind, but it pretty much looks you're not entirely certain of that yourself.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Sensational end of the season results for Spurs, Chelsea and City, satisfaction for Liverpool scraping over the line, disaster for Arsenal who now ply their trade on Thursday's in Russia. Wenger surely gone now.
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
I am sorry to hear that - my father in law had severe dementia, did not know my wife, and the suffering was just horrible.
But the point is that Theresa May has increased the equity from £23,250 to £100,000 together with lifetime home tenure so it is a big improvement on the present situation
I agree it is fairer. And presumably they have done an actuarial calculation which indicates that including the house will raise more than increasing the threshold will lose. Presumably.
But the presentation has been disastrous.
IFS: "It is not possible to be confident whether the change would increase or decrease overall spending relative to the current system on care on the basis of publically available data."
Sensational end of the season results for Spurs, Chelsea and City, satisfaction for Liverpool scraping over the line, disaster for Arsenal who now ply their trade on Thursday's in Russia. Wenger surely gone now.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Thanks Nick, for your comments.
The latter group (those at home) ultimately become the former group (those in care) because dementia is progressive. And after all, it is the care home bills that are huge, so the present system is the wrong way round, offering much more protection to those who face smaller bills.
I was annoyed at Surbiton because he admitted downthread that he was making party political mischief (see his comments regarding Jolyon Maugham’s remarks).
I agree with the Labour manifesto when it says: “Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans.”
I think we are a long way away from solving this problem, because of the levels of public ignorance and the difficulty politicians and the public have in accepting that this is going to cost serious money.
I would also like to see care home workers paid much more -- I was very impressed by the people who looked after my mother.
Any clue about the Welsh poll ? Tories hitting 50% ?
Either Tories 11+ ahead, which would be the highest in history or something or it's swung back to Labour ahead. If it's the latter, I'm not convinced the Tories were ever in front, at least not by that much.
Will the relatively well off really face hardship ? I am not even talking about the very rich.
BY planning Social Care and IHT at the same time, all you have to ensure is that you have just about £100k left in assets.
Next question: Is the £100k gross or net ?
They will presumably legislate over "disposals" that are designed to avoid social care. Councils already look at these situations.
I'm not entirely sure how they will sort this out. IHT has a 7 year rule with a taper. Maybe social care would be in alignment. So get rid of your assets well before you fall ill with dementia or whatever.
So far, all the discussion has been about the over 65s. What about younger people with these diseases? What about their partners who may remain in the home (or want to) for another couple of decades. Will they be forced out?
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
Not affordable - cost of billions - £73,000 will not even cover two years fees
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
Crosby must be having kittens.
The politics looks bad, they could have kept quiet about it until after the election, however I think it's deliberate. The only explanation that I can see is that the Tories are convinced they will win (which is correct), probably will be in power for the next decade and they want to be able to get this policy through without too many problems - hence including it in the manifesto. That doesn't mean that the policy is right, of course.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Where have you been the last 3 days ? The £23k DID NOT INCLUDE the VALUE of your HOUSE. Now, with £100k, IT DOES !
Geddit !
My grandmother used about a third of the value of her £80k house to pay for care home bills until she died a few weeks ago, so it certainly did include the value of the property.
For crying out loud this is totally irresponsible journalism...
LBC's leftie presenters (of which there are too many) have been hammering at this Social Care policy for days now. It's time all the media started scrutinising Labour's policies a little more.
Disastrous policy but we're past the point for a U turn now. Would only increase the damage
Well, it's 5 o'clock and the mooted u-turn by Central Office has not happened.
Why would they do it on a Sunday? Hoping that nobody takes any notice would surely be counter-intuitive? It is a mess, whatever your views of the merits of the scheme, but I still believe the reaction to it has been absurd.
I also believe people will come to their senses when the reality of who actually governs us comes into sharper focus.
If the tory election machine has any sense, they will "means test" the winter fuel allowance at 50k earner in the household:
a) HMRC already have the mechanism to do this, having had to clunk something together for Child Benefit b) They could turn it around into a really popular policy - Corbyn and MacDonnell giving themselves extra money etc etc.
Tory manifesto not going down too well with the elderly... The emerging narrative seems that Corbyn notwithstanding, the Tories are "bullshiters led by a b*tch". So going strongly negative might not work: turns "bullshitters" into "ba*tards". Has May bitten off more than she can chew?
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
Not affordable - cost of billions - £73,000 will not even cover two years fees
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
Crosby must be having kittens.
The politics looks bad, they could have kept quiet about it until after the election, however I think it's deliberate. The only explanation that I can see is that the Tories are convinced they will win (which is correct), probably will be in power for the next decade and they want to be able to get this policy through without too many problems - hence including it in the manifesto. That doesn't mean that the policy is right, of course.
It had to be in the manifesto in order to get through the House of Lords (which is stuffed full of people who will be directly affected!)
Not sure they should have made it pretty much the centre piece of the launch. Maybe this was done because the rest is thin gruel frankly.
Disastrous policy but we're past the point for a U turn now. Would only increase the damage
Well, it's 5 o'clock and the mooted u-turn by Central Office has not happened.
Why would they do it on a Sunday? Hoping that nobody takes any notice would surely be counter-intuitive? It is a mess, whatever your views of the merits of the scheme, but I still believe the reaction to it has been absurd.
I also believe people will come to their senses when the reality of who actually governs us comes into sharper focus.
They have issued clarification is what i am being tild.. expect a media fightback on tbis.
Tory manifesto not going down too well with the elderly... The emerging narrative seems that Corbyn notwithstanding, the Tories are "bullshiters led by a b*tch". So going strongly negative might not work: turns "bullshitters" into "ba*tards". Has May bitten off more than she can chew?
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Thanks, Nick.
Yes, but those expenses will very likely amount to much less than residential care and in any case will only be recovered after the surviving partner has died. Is there any reason why there shouldn't be a contribution from the estate for in-home care but there should be for residential care?
Also, if a person is in receipt of in-home care but later has to move to residential care they will no longer be at risk of their home being sold while they are alive.
Although the ratio of in-home care to residential care is about 4:1 it isn't a static population, with many people moving to the latter group as their condition deteriorates.
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Exactly. This is an improvement on the situation right now.
Amazing that this has somehow been twisted into a negative thing.
If you float a policy 3 weeks before a GE, then your opponents and the media (who are largely not your opponents) 'twist' it into a negative thing, there's only one person or group of persons to blame for that.
If the tory election machine has any sense, they will "means test" the winter fuel allowance at 50k earner in the household:
a) HMRC already have the mechanism to do this, having had to clunk something together for Child Benefit b) They could turn it around into a really popular policy - Corbyn and MacDonnell giving themselves extra money etc etc.
If.... They're not that politically savvy.
I doubt many pensioners have a single earner earning 50k from pensions... It would need to be far lower and whilst yes there is a mechanism in place I can't see many people willingly filling in tax returns every year.
Means testing is the best of a bad set of options if you have to restrict it...
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
Not affordable - cost of billions - £73,000 will not even cover two years fees
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
Crosby must be having kittens.
The politics looks bad, they could have kept quiet about it until after the election, however I think it's deliberate. The only explanation that I can see is that the Tories are convinced they will win (which is correct), probably will be in power for the next decade and they want to be able to get this policy through without too many problems - hence including it in the manifesto. That doesn't mean that the policy is right, of course.
Agreed, but something fairly vacuous such as "review Dilnot to see if sufficient" would've done. I have not the slightest doubt that JC and JM have all kinds of tax rises lined up that they haven't been specific about (pensions?) that they haven't been daft enough to wave about in great detail in public three weeks before an election.
Ironically the lack of detail from the Tories on WFA is also baffling, so everyone assumes the worst, (unless your Scottish!) rather than pointing out "we're cutting Philip Green's heating benefit but keeping little old ladies warm", which I imagine would be a wildly easy sell.
Still care is on the national agenda now and that's good.
Tory manifesto not going down too well with the elderly... The emerging narrative seems that Corbyn notwithstanding, the Tories are "bullshiters led by a b*tch". So going strongly negative might not work: turns "bullshitters" into "ba*tards". Has May bitten off more than she can chew?
Novel, I was expecting something a little more sophisticated from the #LibDemFightBack
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Exactly. This is an improvement on the situation right now.
Amazing that this has somehow been twisted into a negative thing.
If you float a policy 3 weeks before a GE, then your opponents and the media (who are largely not your opponents) can 'twist' it into a negative thing, there's only one person or group of persons to blame for that.
One of the key areas in Tuesday's SNP manifesto launch is how they're going to protect pensioners against the onslaught of Tory stealth taxes. I think Ruth is going to come under a bit of pressure tonight on all of this - will be interesting to see how she copes.
I have been thinking about the Tory social care policy and I actually think the main problem is people don't want to think about death, and they are always optimistic. My wife's family look after her grandmother who has dementia. If her family were not retired and able themselves, and if she was any more than a slight woman they would not be able to. Most people don't think about their old age and expect ill health and social isolation but that is the reality of increasing life expectancy
Disastrous policy but we're past the point for a U turn now. Would only increase the damage
Yep. I think this might be one of these perverse stories, in that the longer it's in the spotlight the less of an impact it has on the election.
As we've seen from the generally courteous debate on here over the past couple of days, there's an awful lot of people who don't understand how social care operates at the moment.
It appears that the proposals would significantly mitigate the worst horror stories that have come out here, such as councils forcing sales and people rushing for powers of attorney and court cases when they should be looking after their loved one in their dying days.
The line from the Labour manifesto about being adults on this subject, needs to be quoted back at anyone trying to use pejorative terms for electoral benefit. Its really more important than that.
Might I implore you, for the sake of PB Tory bed wetters, to place a link on the side bar to the Samaritans.
and pampers
Lol, nicely put. Hysteria MK I I begins.
If the Tories had asked me about their social care proposals a week ago, then watched as I wet myself, started crying, and banged my tiny fists repeatedly on the floor of Camden Sainsbury's, screaming NO NO NO NO, they might have realised their proposals were a complete load of shit, politically speaking, and they would have thought again.
And their poll lead wouldn't have been slashed to single digits.
Sometimes a bit of panic is good for you, e.g. when you are about to do something criminally self-harming.
I don't see the problem with the so called dementia tax. You can only get £23K of an estate at the moment. under the Manifesto that will rise to 100K. You might not get dementia. If you do and have assets why should the state and poorer people pay for rich peoples care? What is the problem? If I were you I would be more bothered about Labour's IHT plans and the potential for a wealth tax that John McDonnell is on the record as advocating:
Exactly. This is an improvement on the situation right now.
Amazing that this has somehow been twisted into a negative thing.
If you float a policy 3 weeks before a GE, then your opponents and the media (who are largely not your opponents) can 'twist' it into a negative thing, there's only one person or group of persons to blame for that.
One of the key areas in Tuesday's SNP manifesto launch is how they're going to protect pensioners against the onslaught of Tory stealth taxes. I think Ruth is going to come under a bit of pressure tonight on all of this - will be interesting to see how she copes.
Davidson has already said the Scottish Tories will still vote to keep the winter fuel allowance in full when Holyrood votes on it and Scotland was the only place in the UK other than the South which backed May's social care changes with Yougov today. Today's Yougov also had the Tories still getting a swing of about 9% from the SNP, well above the UK swing from Labour to Tory, if May does scrape a 100 seat majority with a bit of swingback from Labour (and it will probably be scrape it now) it will likely be Scotland that takes her over the line
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
Otherwise known as bad defending....
The money they get is unbelievable. For that kind of money, any player caught simulating, should lose at least a months wages. That might stop them. Cards are useless.
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
If the tory election machine has any sense, they will "means test" the winter fuel allowance at 50k earner in the household:
a) HMRC already have the mechanism to do this, having had to clunk something together for Child Benefit b) They could turn it around into a really popular policy - Corbyn and MacDonnell giving themselves extra money etc etc.
If.... They're not that politically savvy.
I doubt many pensioners have a single earner earning 50k from pensions... It would need to be far lower and whilst yes there is a mechanism in place I can't see many people willingly filling in tax returns every year.
Means testing is the best of a bad set of options if you have to restrict it...
Yes, the right way to integrate it is into the existing means test for 'pension credit', which works in a similar way to tax credits. WFA needs to be withdrawn at something like £15k to make any sensible saving.
Labour won't do that much to help the very poor. The very poor will still vote for them, for want of a better alternative. As with Labour and the benefit dependent, so with the Tories and wealthy homeowners.
"Labour is fighting to halt a slide in its traditionally rock-solid minority ethnic vote which threatens to cost it even more seats, a study released on Monday finds.
"Operation Black Vote (OBV) says 45 of the 50 most marginal seats have a minority ethnic population bigger than the majority of the winning party.
"The survey by the non-party OBV says the minority ethnic vote could determine if Theresa May gets a landslide or Labour avoids a wipeout on 8 June."
I have never thought that SeanT has a rational mind, more a sort of auto-rant mechanism, but on this instance I agree with him. If it looks like voting Corbyn will kill Brexit stone dead then I will hold my nose and vote for Corbyn.
Exactly. The Labour party needs to send out those Single Market, very Soft Brexit signals. Dog whistle the liberal Remoaners.
Then they could, remarkably, win.
Yes. I think it is possible. This must be the most regressive tax in living memory and it begs the question "Why save any money? Why not just spend it and arrive at pensionhood penniless?"
Very true that is what my father keeps saying.
You clearly do not know how it happens at present then
I do, do not judge me ,my mother in law has severe dementia .She does not know who my wife is.She does not know her son died in February or her son died last month.
I am sorry to hear that - my father in law had severe dementia, did not know my wife, and the suffering was just horrible.
But the point is that Theresa May has increased the equity from £23,250 to £100,000 together with lifetime home tenure so it is a big improvement on the present situation
I agree it is fairer. And presumably they have done an actuarial calculation which indicates that including the house will raise more than increasing the threshold will lose. Presumably.
But the presentation has been disastrous.
IFS: "It is not possible to be confident whether the change would increase or decrease overall spending relative to the current system on care on the basis of publically available data."
So this change might not improve the funding situation at all? Astonishing.
(Also pretty depressing that the IFS can't spell the word "publicly".)
The way it works today is cruel and May's proposals are fair though some thought could be given to long term dementia care relief
If nothing else this has opened a debate to which TM has had the courage to address and Corbyn and Farron have no answer but to continue the present system of cruelty and taking away all but £23,250 of a persons estate
I thought their position was that now but also accepting Dilnot post 2020 which capped payments at 73k?
Not affordable - cost of billions - £73,000 will not even cover two years fees
I can see that. It's the timing of taking the pin out of the grenade just after you've put it in your mouth, rather than safely waiting till you had put it at the far end of the firing range, nowhere near you, and you were in the bunker marked June 9th.
Crosby must be having kittens.
The politics looks bad, they could have kept quiet about it until after the election, however I think it's deliberate. The only explanation that I can see is that the Tories are convinced they will win (which is correct), probably will be in power for the next decade and they want to be able to get this policy through without too many problems - hence including it in the manifesto. That doesn't mean that the policy is right, of course.
It had to be in the manifesto in order to get through the House of Lords (which is stuffed full of people who will be directly affected!)
Not sure they should have made it pretty much the centre piece of the launch. Maybe this was done because the rest is thin gruel frankly.
Unlike MPs I understand that half the Lords are from the Home Counties. But even £300k of care doesn't make much dent in a £1M house value. £150k of care and a £250,000 house up north is worse, as a percentage.
However, is it true, as I've seen quoted, that the annual costs of nursing and social care are £10 to 20 billion? That's 8-16% of the NHS budget. It's petty cash to a government which pisses away >£50 billion/yr on private pension tax relief, PFI and weapons systems that don't, er, work - read Private Eye every fortnight for coverage of those cockups.
Tory manifesto not going down too well with the elderly... The emerging narrative seems that Corbyn notwithstanding, the Tories are "bullshiters led by a b*tch". So going strongly negative might not work: turns "bullshitters" into "ba*tards". Has May bitten off more than she can chew?
Novel, I was expecting something a little more sophisticated from the #LibDemFightBack
I saw the LD fightback with the release of that Farage/May poster. My thoughts are firstly that it is truly pathetic, desperate even and secondly who on earth advised them to create such a meaningless poster? I hope they got the advise for free.......
It does, you stupid, contemptuous little man. The 23 k does include the value of the house if you are in a care home.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
I'm sorry about your mother and her home.
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Even if what you claim is true (and as it's from you I instinctively don't) then that's just a relative change between two different small groups of people.
Therefore - so what?
Can we have that again, in English?
It's perfectly clear.
If you can't understand it then please let us know if your house is worth over £100k. There will be a man from the Ministry along shortly to sell it and pay for your care.
In terms of betting, we need to start seriously considering the remote possibility of a Hung Parliament, and even the outlandish, absurd outcome that is a Corbyn victory.
You can get 10/1 against a Hung Parliament. Even though the odds have shortened - for reasons we all know - to me, that still looks like VALUE.
Another 3 point swing to Corbyn, and it's no Overall Majority. Is that really a 10/1 shot?
No I doubt it. If anything the government will recover in the next few days once they U-turn on a few of the bad policies. Everything that has been done can be undone. Boris was clearly preparing the ground for it today on house stealing, I expect it to come for Northern WFA soon as well. That will take the sting out if it and see 15-17 point leads again.
But that will completely wreck Theresa's 'Strong and Stable' narrative. What will she have left? Not the policies which have proven either toxic or Miliband-esque and the jury's still out on Brexit. Theresa's only selling point will be that she didn't cosy up to Sinn Féin a few decades back. Whoopy doo...
They won't be actual U-turns but clarifications of existing policies or announcing royal commissions to kick them into the long grass and having a very high threshold for the means test for WFA plus exemption based on climate data for the North. Together it will be enough to reversethe poll decline but just about hold onto strong and stable, but also move the narrative on from this stuff back to Brexit where they are on much safer ground.
See here: they are refusing to U-turn (and I can see why, it would look so bad, though I agree with you they should do it anyway)
You might say they were being, er, strong and stable?
Stubborn and Foolish ??
Its not a u turn thats needed its a ckarification of the current policy vs the proposed new one. On the doorstep this morning most people did not have a clue as to the current situation. What they have done is make people think abt this..why goodness only knows.
Because the current situation is utterly unsustainable and something has to be done.
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
Otherwise known as bad defending....
The money they get is unbelievable. For that kind of money, any player caught simulating, should lose at least a months wages. That might stop them. Cards are useless.
I'd go for significant bans (six weeks, as we see in rugby). Fining a guy who earns is paid half a million quid a month already doesn't impact him too much.
Comments
Edit: and Lallana, 3-0. Done & dusted!
So, if she ditches the whole thing by 7pm tonight then we are left with existing system with no cap and that is worse. As the Saga link points out Councils have been getting up to all sorts with courts and forced house sales. Frankly, I had no idea about this side of things. I assumed councils were putting charges on property and adding interest but not selling while people are still alive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/revealed-john-mcdonnell-calls-20-per-cent-wealth-tax-richest/
I am really interested in Labour's plans to shape the post Brexit UK economy up, hopefully this change in the polls will mean I become more enlightened as to their secret agenda.
But the point is that Theresa May has increased the equity from £23,250 to £100,000 together with lifetime home tenure so it is a big improvement on the present situation
The Tories also promised to rid of the deficit by 2015. Now they would not do so until 2022 at the earliest despite, their claim, the highest growth rates in Europe.
That is in summary, election promises.
I have witnessed the distress of many who had their homes forcibly sold while alive. It was and is unacceptable
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/revealed-john-mcdonnell-calls-20-per-cent-wealth-tax-richest/
That hurts *everybody*.
What was this election supposed to be about? Oh, Brexit. So last month.
Geddit !
Very difficult situation especially for my wife to cope with.
It had to be in the manifesto for this election to stand any chance of the subject being debated in the next parliament. It will cost some votes and possibly seats but if the subject is now entering the wider public consciousness then that is a good thing. Perhaps better proposals will be brought forward but sustainable funding for social care has to stay on the agenda.
It is in all our interests.
For very many people requiring day-to-day care, they will be forced to move out of their own homes.
In defence of the new policy,
1. If you are able to save but are unable to buy a property then the new proposals are an unalloyed benefit. You will keep your savings up to a value of £100,000, which is more than four times the sum currently exempted.
2. If you can afford to buy property then it is still well worth doing so. Buying a property is often less expensive than renting, and certainly gives one both greater freedom and security of tenure. Moreover, if you own a house then you can extract value from it when you retire (through equity release or by selling up and downsizing,) and blow the proceeds on holidays and a more comfortable lifestyle, rather than having to work until you drop to pay your landlord and having nothing left to show for it at the end. And who still wants to be parting with rent out of their pension if they can avoid it?
3. This isn't a tax. It's asking people with means to take care of themselves. What would fall under the definition of "regressive" taxation would be asking the general taxpayer to cough up quite a lot more to cover the creation of some kind of national care service or national care insurance scheme to give everyone "free" care, just so that those wealthy enough to have accumulated estates can pass them on intact. Now, I'm not enamoured of confiscatory policies or punishing the wealthy, but nor do I think that it is unreasonable to ask people who can afford to pay for care to do so. It's hard luck on them, but such is life. The alternative is a levelled out system of state provision, as with the NHS, which is paid for by everybody, including those who will never hope to be in receipt of fat inheritances themselves.
4. Please remember that somebody with the wherewithal to purchase a property has probably enjoyed a higher standard of living during their lives than somebody who has never been able to afford to and that, under these proposals, they won't be made to part with their property until they are a corpse and, therefore, no longer in need of it. Again, asking the poor to cough up more tax to guarantee the inheritances of the heirs of the wealthy isn't very progressive.
5. Why should the money of savers be treated as an asset to be used towards care, whilst the value of property remains mysteriously exempt? Again, if we can ask people with savings, as we have been doing for donkey's years, to part with them above a certain threshold, then why not ask the same of the owners of housing?
But the presentation has been disastrous.
I had to sell my mother's house. I know it does.
EDIT: And Farron has promised us he won't go into coalition with anybody....
@GOsborneGenius
As I wrote here the other day, the proposed changes benefit the estate of people who have to go into care, at the expense of the estate of people who only need help in their own homes. For the latter group (which is I think much larger), Surbiton is entirely correct.
Amazing that this has somehow been twisted into a negative thing.
BY planning Social Care and IHT at the same time, all you have to ensure is that you have just about £100k left in assets.
Next question: Is the £100k gross or net ?
(sorry Mike!)
Therefore - so what?
The latter group (those at home) ultimately become the former group (those in care) because dementia is progressive. And after all, it is the care home bills that are huge, so the present system is the wrong way round, offering much more protection to those who face smaller bills.
I was annoyed at Surbiton because he admitted downthread that he was making party political mischief (see his comments regarding Jolyon Maugham’s remarks).
I agree with the Labour manifesto when it says: “Providing dignity and care in old age should transcend party politics and campaign slogans.”
I think we are a long way away from solving this problem, because of the levels of public ignorance and the difficulty politicians and the public have in accepting that this is going to cost serious money.
I would also like to see care home workers paid much more -- I was very impressed by the people who looked after my mother.
I'm not entirely sure how they will sort this out. IHT has a 7 year rule with a taper. Maybe social care would be in alignment. So get rid of your assets well before you fall ill with dementia or whatever.
So far, all the discussion has been about the over 65s. What about younger people with these diseases? What about their partners who may remain in the home (or want to) for another couple of decades. Will they be forced out?
The only explanation that I can see is that the Tories are convinced they will win (which is correct), probably will be in power for the next decade and they want to be able to get this policy through without too many problems - hence including it in the manifesto.
That doesn't mean that the policy is right, of course.
LBC's leftie presenters (of which there are too many) have been hammering at this Social Care policy for days now. It's time all the media started scrutinising Labour's policies a little more.
I also believe people will come to their senses when the reality of who actually governs us comes into sharper focus.
a) HMRC already have the mechanism to do this, having had to clunk something together for Child Benefit
b) They could turn it around into a really popular policy - Corbyn and MacDonnell giving themselves extra money etc etc.
If.... They're not that politically savvy.
Not sure they should have made it pretty much the centre piece of the launch. Maybe this was done because the rest is thin gruel frankly.
Also, if a person is in receipt of in-home care but later has to move to residential care they will no longer be at risk of their home being sold while they are alive.
Although the ratio of in-home care to residential care is about 4:1 it isn't a static population, with many people moving to the latter group as their condition deteriorates.
Good evening, everybody.
Means testing is the best of a bad set of options if you have to restrict it...
With the Premier League programme now completed, a record total of 1064 goals were scored in 380 games, therefore averaging exactly 2.8 goals per game .... there's entertainment for you!
Ironically the lack of detail from the Tories on WFA is also baffling, so everyone assumes the worst, (unless your Scottish!) rather than pointing out "we're cutting Philip Green's heating benefit but keeping little old ladies warm", which I imagine would be a wildly easy sell.
Still care is on the national agenda now and that's good.
As we've seen from the generally courteous debate on here over the past couple of days, there's an awful lot of people who don't understand how social care operates at the moment.
It appears that the proposals would significantly mitigate the worst horror stories that have come out here, such as councils forcing sales and people rushing for powers of attorney and court cases when they should be looking after their loved one in their dying days.
The line from the Labour manifesto about being adults on this subject, needs to be quoted back at anyone trying to use pejorative terms for electoral benefit. Its really more important than that.
Unfortunately it cannot transcend pounds, shillings and pence.
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/865956022829146113
Labour won't do that much to help the very poor. The very poor will still vote for them, for want of a better alternative. As with Labour and the benefit dependent, so with the Tories and wealthy homeowners.
Oh, and a bonus:
https://twitter.com/guardian/status/866295331788664832
"Labour is fighting to halt a slide in its traditionally rock-solid minority ethnic vote which threatens to cost it even more seats, a study released on Monday finds.
"Operation Black Vote (OBV) says 45 of the 50 most marginal seats have a minority ethnic population bigger than the majority of the winning party.
"The survey by the non-party OBV says the minority ethnic vote could determine if Theresa May gets a landslide or Labour avoids a wipeout on 8 June."
(Also pretty depressing that the IFS can't spell the word "publicly".)
However, is it true, as I've seen quoted, that the annual costs of nursing and social care are £10 to 20 billion? That's 8-16% of the NHS budget. It's petty cash to a government which pisses away >£50 billion/yr on private pension tax relief, PFI and weapons systems that don't, er, work - read Private Eye every fortnight for coverage of those cockups.
If you can't understand it then please let us know if your house is worth over £100k. There will be a man from the Ministry along shortly to sell it and pay for your care.
earnsis paid half a million quid a month already doesn't impact him too much.