A gloriously hot and sunny afternoon in East Sussex. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, the roses are enchanting. England at its very best.
Re this social care proposal: one tweak might be to raise the threshold to £235,000 ie the level at which IHT kicks in. And, maybe, to say that 40% of the estate should be used to pay for the care. There would be a symmetry there with what happens with other estates which might deal with the perception that those needing care are somehow being treated unfairly.
But fundamentally the givernment is right to say that those who have assets and savings should use those for themselves in their old age and not expect others who have less to pay for this.
Me spending money on myself to make myself comfortable when I am fragile is very different to the state taking nearly half my money to spend on others with no benefit either to me or mine.
Finally, re that Abbott quote on bring on the side of those who wanted to defeat the British state: imagine her in charge of the security and intelligence services who work so hard to protect us from those who want to harm us.
The question for me is this: "Can I trust Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not to be on the side of those who want to harm the British state and its citizens now?"
And the answer - based on their past history, their equivocations when faced now with what they said then and their whataboutery when faced with the reality of the threats we face - is no.
I don't trust them to protect me and mine from harm because I don't trust them to recognise evil when it is in front of their nose.
I am no fan of Mrs May but on this I trust her more than I can Corbyn and his Leftist acolytes.
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."
They would restore £2 billion of welfare payments though
I think you're right, but I think you're over-estimating the intelligence of the Tory team, especially the small coterie around TMay, and TMay herself. They are, it turns out, crap. Just complete crap.
The campaign should be taken away from them and given to Dominic Cummings, Lynton Crosby, bloody Peter Mandelson, anyone, but it won't, because they are arrogant cretins.
I expect TMay to win, but I very much doubt she will get a landslide, so it might feel a bit like a defeat. She will then enact her loathsome nannying policies, God help us, and she will then try and negotiate Brexit having proved she is a halfwit, and about as agile and cunning as a salted slug.
Fantastic.
I still don't understand what possessed these idiots when they thought moving on from the winning line "Theresa is Mrs Brexit" to an untested one which involves confiscation of property at some level (rightly or wrongly). I'm literally left scratching my head at the moment.
I can't think of a bigger unforced error in terms of manifesto proposals - ever. I can think of larger political gaffes - "bigoted woman", I can think of more hilarious campaign cock-ups - EdStone.
But I can't, offhand, think of a stupider policy mistake, written down in black and white. And it was entirely unnecessary. There was no clamour for clarity on this issue.
As you say: bewilderingly dim.
What is the problem. It seems like a fair and just way of dealing with it to me.
I'm not talking about the policy per se (though I think it is incoherent in itself, why penalise dementia), I'm clearly talking about the insanity of putting this detail in a manifesto, along with the winter fuel stuff.
I said on here from the minute it was announced that it was bloody stupid and seriously damaging. And I was, sadly, right.
There's no proof of that yet. The polls last night were just where they've been since the start of the campaign proper: Tories at 45-46 give or take MoE.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
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...
Indeed you are correct, though I was thinking good politics rather than books-balancing economics (who balances the books these days?. The means test surely has to fall above the pension credit means test level.
It's a hard sell to suggest that an income of £8,286 per annum is a suitable threshold to determine that you're wealthy enough to not need extra help with heating. It almost looks the kind of judgement a "nasty party" might make.
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.
The private pension tax relief is the thing that might stop govts in mid century having ten million geriatric welfare claimants. It's like eating the seed corn if you bugger about with it too much. Brown's pensions catastrophes are still largely in the pipeline heading the country's way over the next ten to forty years. Like a tsunami out at sea it's no great present issue - yet!
"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."
Shocking they use the term "minority ethnic" rather than "ethnic minority".
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
Still a much better performance than previous elections. And a choice for Secretary of State! How about it.
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."
They would restore £2 billion of welfare payments though
And the Tories may be planning to wring more money out of people for home help, but their proposed changes will be a net benefit to those going into residential care. Swings and roundabouts.
Anyhow, manifestos are of limited importance in election campaigns. The Tory lead on leadership and on most of the key election issues remains substantial. All will be well.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
It would be *so* hilarious if Corbyn gets a higher vote share than Miliband or Brown ...
Why? The political environment has totally changed with the collapse of UKIP. You can take the numbers from the last two elections as base lines.
LAB can exceed GE2015 by many points. What matters is the gap behind CON and how many seats.
There are many things that *matter*. The big battle is the GE, and as you say that is about seats. But another battle - or skirmish - lies at the heart of the Labour Party. Corbynistas and the hard leftists have been continually told that their man is incompetent, hopeless, a fool, etc, etc. If he scores higher than his two immediate predecessors they'll be able to point at the moderates and say: "He did better than your guys, he deserves another chance!"
It also allows them to ask if the moderates have anyone capable of getting a better result, if Brown and Miliband couldn't. Yes, the political environment has changed, but the raw numbers may tell a story of their own.
The moderates attacking him have helped set the expectations about their own side very low. *If* he manages to handsomely exceed those low expectations, he'll be able to stay on. And it will all be the moderates fault.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
Still a much better performance than previous elections. And a choice for Secretary of State! How about it.
In their disastrous year of 1987 SCON still had 10 MPs - now they're ra-ra-raing about getting less than that.
It would be delightfully amusing if the SLDs ended with more MPs than the SCONs.
It would be *so* hilarious if Corbyn gets a higher vote share than Miliband or Brown ...
Why? The political environment has totally changed with the collapse of UKIP. You can take the numbers from the last two elections as base lines.
LAB can exceed GE2015 by many points. What matters is the gap behind CON and how many seats.
There are many things that *matter*. The big battle is the GE, and as you say that is about seats. But another battle - or skirmish - lies at the heart of the Labour Party. Corbynistas and the hard leftists have been continually told that their man is incompetent, hopeless, a fool, etc, etc. If he scores higher than his two immediate predecessors they'll be able to point at the moderates and say: "He did better than your guys, he deserves another chance!"
It also allows them to ask if the moderates have anyone capable of getting a better result, if Brown and Miliband couldn't. Yes, the political environment has changed, but the raw numbers may tell a story of their own.
The moderates attacking him have helped set the expectations about their own side very low. *If* he manages to handsomely exceed those low expectations, he'll be able to stay on. And it will all be the moderates fault.
If.
This is precisely why a split is inevitable. The moderates won't suffer the humiliation of the Labour party being in the hands of these far left loonies for another five years. The only conflcit I can see is who keeps the Labour name if two parties emerge.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
Still a much better performance than previous elections. And a choice for Secretary of State! How about it.
In their disastrous year of 1987 SCON still had 10 MPs - now they're ra-ra-raing about getting less than that.
It would be delightfully amusing if the SLDs ended with more MPs than the SCONs.
Based on today's yougov Scottish subsample the Scottish Tories would win ALL seats that chart has as tossups so that would be 6 gains in Scotland and based on the locals and tactical voting they may get up to 10 so would match 1987. The SNP are also down to 44%, 6% below 2015 and below the 45% Yes got in 2014
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."
They would restore £2 billion of welfare payments though
And the Tories may be planning to wring more money out of people for home help, but their proposed changes will be a net benefit to those going into residential care. Swings and roundabouts.
Anyhow, manifestos are of limited importance in election campaigns. The Tory lead on leadership and on most of the key election issues remains substantial. All will be well.
The EU are also publishing their UK negotiation plans tomorrow, which should be as stubborn and obstinate as expected which will enable the Tories to get back onto Brexit
It would be *so* hilarious if Corbyn gets a higher vote share than Miliband or Brown ...
Why? The political environment has totally changed with the collapse of UKIP. You can take the numbers from the last two elections as base lines.
LAB can exceed GE2015 by many points. What matters is the gap behind CON and how many seats.
There are many things that *matter*. The big battle is the GE, and as you say that is about seats. But another battle - or skirmish - lies at the heart of the Labour Party. Corbynistas and the hard leftists have been continually told that their man is incompetent, hopeless, a fool, etc, etc. If he scores higher than his two immediate predecessors they'll be able to point at the moderates and say: "He did better than your guys, he deserves another chance!"
It also allows them to ask if the moderates have anyone capable of getting a better result, if Brown and Miliband couldn't. Yes, the political environment has changed, but the raw numbers may tell a story of their own.
The moderates attacking him have helped set the expectations about their own side very low. *If* he manages to handsomely exceed those low expectations, he'll be able to stay on. And it will all be the moderates fault.
If.
This is precisely why a split is inevitable. The moderates won't suffer the humiliation of the Labour party being in the hands of these far left loonies for another five years. The only conflcit I can see is who keeps the Labour name if two parties emerge.
If Labour manages to consolidate the opposition vote and obtain a good result despite Corbyn then the case for a split rather than just waiting for the post-Corbyn era becomes much weaker. The party must still have very strong brand value.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
It would be *so* hilarious if Corbyn gets a higher vote share than Miliband or Brown ...
Why? The political environment has totally changed with the collapse of UKIP. You can take the numbers from the last two elections as base lines.
LAB can exceed GE2015 by many points. What matters is the gap behind CON and how many seats.
There are many things that *matter*. The big battle is the GE, and as you say that is about seats. But another battle - or skirmish - lies at the heart of the Labour Party. Corbynistas and the hard leftists have been continually told that their man is incompetent, hopeless, a fool, etc, etc. If he scores higher than his two immediate predecessors they'll be able to point at the moderates and say: "He did better than your guys, he deserves another chance!"
It also allows them to ask if the moderates have anyone capable of getting a better result, if Brown and Miliband couldn't. Yes, the political environment has changed, but the raw numbers may tell a story of their own.
The moderates attacking him have helped set the expectations about their own side very low. *If* he manages to handsomely exceed those low expectations, he'll be able to stay on. And it will all be the moderates fault.
If.
This is precisely why a split is inevitable. The moderates won't suffer the humiliation of the Labour party being in the hands of these far left loonies for another five years. The only conflcit I can see is who keeps the Labour name if two parties emerge.
If Labour manages to consolidate the opposition vote and obtain a good result despite Corbyn then the case for a split rather than just waiting for the post-Corbyn era becomes much weaker. The party must still have very strong brand value.
Your flippant answer suggests you have never been in a residential care home in your life.
Actually, I support two residential care homes as part of my current business, and I do visit them as part of organising their support systems.
For comparison, @Beverley_C, can you tell us how this is dealt with in Eire? (ISTR you have or are pursuing citizenship.)
Good evening, everybody.
Hi Anne
I have no idea how it is dealt with Eire. My citizenship comes from the clause in the Irish constitution that says "born on the island of Ireland". I was born in N. Ireland so I have never lived in the south. I am still in England although I have started organising my "Brexit-proofing"
Nonetheless, you raise a good point - there are no new problems and so other countries will have tackled the "dementia issue" and some of them will have solutions that work. We need to find out what those solutions are and see if they can be applied here.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
It would be hilarious if in the year when everyone was expecting an electoral earthquake to hit in France or Germany, we delivered a monumental shock for the second time in a row. Makes you proud to be British...
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
It would be hilarious if in the year when everyone was expecting an electoral earthquake to hit in France or Germany, we delivered a monumental shock for the second time in a row. Makes you proud to be British...
Even on today's polls May is on 44% and 46%, higher than any Thatcher, Major, Blair or Cameron ever got, she will not lose, the question is the size of her majority. The EU has survived this year and feels smug because its main challengers have been the far right who the establishment parties can see off, next year though may be a different story when Italy goes to the polls in May, Beppe Grillo's Eurosceptic 5* leads about half the polls and he is more Boris Johnson than Marine Le Pen
A gloriously hot and sunny afternoon in East Sussex. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, the roses are enchanting. England at its very best.
Re this social care proposal: one tweak might be to raise the threshold to £235,000 ie the level at which IHT kicks in. And, maybe, to say that 40% of the estate should be used to pay for the care. There would be a symmetry there with what happens with other estates which might deal with the perception that those needing care are somehow being treated unfairly.
But fundamentally the givernment is right to say that those who have assets and savings should use those for themselves in their old age and not expect others who have less to pay for this.
Me spending money on myself to make myself comfortable when I am fragile is very different to the state taking nearly half my money to spend on others with no benefit either to me or mine.
Finally, re that Abbott quote on bring on the side of those who wanted to defeat the British state: imagine her in charge of the security and intelligence services who work so hard to protect us from those who want to harm us.
The question for me is this: "Can I trust Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not to be on the side of those who want to harm the British state and its citizens now?"
And the answer - based on their past history, their equivocations when faced now with what they said then and their whataboutery when faced with the reality of the threats we face - is no.
I don't trust them to protect me and mine from harm because I don't trust them to recognise evil when it is in front of their nose.
I am no fan of Mrs May but on this I trust her more than I can Corbyn and his Leftist acolytes.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
It would be hilarious if in the year when everyone was expecting an electoral earthquake to hit in France or Germany, we delivered a monumental shock for the second time in a row. Makes you proud to be British...
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
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....
From very expensive and very well paid defenders.
cough..... not so much at Spurs thank you.... both in terms of goals conceded but also I fear in terms of their relative wages which makes my next 3 months immediately v worrying for next season, even before the Fantasy PB League tables are completed for this one....
I might just hold on to finish above certain key PBers.
I do not disagree but do you accept my argument that May has improved the system. I do have knowledge in this field as prior to retiring I saw the devastation caused to old people losing their homes and Councils pocketing all their home proceeds but for a mere £23,250.
It was and is shameful and that will be stopped now
I accept that she has attempted to change the system. Whether or not it will be an improvement remains to be seen. My fear is that no matter how it is funded, not much of the money will find its way to the person needing care. It is why my mother-in-law is being cared for within the family and has been moved in with my brother-in-law.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
@Jason Indeed. But now Palmer is just a pointless multi-faced own-feet-eating has-been.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting party.
I do not disagree but do you accept my argument that May has improved the system. I do have knowledge in this field as prior to retiring I saw the devastation caused to old people losing their homes and Councils pocketing all their home proceeds but for a mere £23,250.
It was and is shameful and that will be stopped now
I accept that she has attempted to change the system. Whether or not it will be an improvement remains to be seen. My fear is that no matter how it is funded, not much of the money will find its way to the person needing care. It is why my mother-in-law is being cared for within the family and has been moved in with my brother-in-law.
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
A gloriously hot and sunny afternoon in East Sussex. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, the roses are enchanting. England at its very best.
Re this social care proposal: one tweak might be to raise the threshold to £235,000 ie the level at which IHT kicks in. And, maybe, to say that 40% of the estate should be used to pay for the care. There would be a symmetry there with what happens with other estates which might deal with the perception that those needing care are somehow being treated unfairly.
But fundamentally the givernment is right to say that those who have assets and savings should use those for themselves in their old age and not expect others who have less to pay for this.
Me spending money on myself to make myself comfortable when I am fragile is very different to the state taking nearly half my money to spend on others with no benefit either to me or mine.
Finally, re that Abbott quote on bring on the side of those who wanted to defeat the British state: imagine her in charge of the security and intelligence services who work so hard to protect us from those who want to harm us.
The question for me is this: "Can I trust Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not to be on the side of those who want to harm the British state and its citizens now?"
And the answer - based on their past history, their equivocations when faced now with what they said then and their whataboutery when faced with the reality of the threats we face - is no.
I don't trust them to protect me and mine from harm because I don't trust them to recognise evil when it is in front of their nose.
I am no fan of Mrs May but on this I trust her more than I can Corbyn and his Leftist acolytes.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it effects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
How is the change to WFA likely to affect (or be affected by) the Barnett formula funding, I wonder? If the Scots are getting more from the UK purse to subsidise those "Scottish millionaires" will it mean that there is pro rata less for their other commitments?
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
Don't see how that's relevant to what I've just said.
I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn and won't be voting Labour at this GE. I've been more than critical of him on here now for years.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
@Jason Indeed. But now Palmer is just a pointless multi-faced own-feet-eating has-been.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting party.
Really? C'mon, let's slag off the Labour leadership rather than people who post on here.
And so you were. Anyone would think you were a former MP or something.
I did try and tell him that!
By the way I'm still looking through online Hansard trying to find Corbyn's speeches and votes on the Good Friday Agreement.
lol! I've completed my trolling quota for the day.
Hansard does its best to facilitate searches, but I always find it gives either too much or too little information. So much goes on in Parliament that it's difficult. You might be better off going to his TheyWorkForYou page?
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Very happy with the wobble. I still believe Labour is going to get absolutely smashed, and have been looking at the price for under 120 seats. It was 10-1 earlier on in the week, and has now gone out to 20-1 with PaddyPower, so I got £20 on it today. So, it's a very heartfelt thanks to SeanT et al. from me.
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Your flippant answer suggests you have never been in a residential care home in your life.
Actually, I support two residential care homes as part of my current business, and I do visit them as part of organising their support systems.
For comparison, @Beverley_C, can you tell us how this is dealt with in Eire? (ISTR you have or are pursuing citizenship.)
Good evening, everybody.
Hi Anne
I have no idea how it is dealt with Eire. My citizenship comes from the clause in the Irish constitution that says "born on the island of Ireland". I was born in N. Ireland so I have never lived in the south. I am still in England although I have started organising my "Brexit-proofing"
Nonetheless, you raise a good point - there are no new problems and so other countries will have tackled the "dementia issue" and some of them will have solutions that work. We need to find out what those solutions are and see if they can be applied here.
Many thanks for the reply. I ask because PB had/has a poster in Eire who was very hard-hit by welfare cuts after the 2008 crash (if you are reading, my apologies, I forget your posting name although I often think of you).
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
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
All the more reason for people to start thinking about it IMO.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
@Jason Indeed. But now Palmer is just a pointless multi-faced own-feet-eating has-been.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting party.
Really? C'mon, let's slag off the Labour leadership rather than people who post on here.
Very amusingly you posted defence of the man that only seconds before Palmer commented that he's hit his "trolling quota" for the day.
For that comment - at least - I salute his honesty.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
Geoff, he accused me of 'wriggling' this morning because I denounced the leader of his party as a terrorist sympathiser, which he clearly is. Go figure.
@Jason Indeed. But now Palmer is just a pointless multi-faced own-feet-eating has-been.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting 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?"
What do you like is life in a care home with no money?
If you need a wheelchair, you’ll get a basic wheelchair. But, if you need a comfortable wheelchair that is adapted to your specialist needs, you will have to pay for it.
If you need any kind of dental treatment beyond the bare minimum, you will have to pay for it.
If you want to have your hair done, you will have to pay for it.
If you wish to join an organised trip out to break the monotony of your day, you will have to pay for it.
Life in care home with no money is very unpleasant.
As the demand continues to increase, life in the care home with the Council paying you fees is going to get grimmer. You will get a basic kind of life, propped up in front of the telly in the care home lounge. But that is all you’ll get.
The system is falling to bits. It needs more money. If more and more people game the system by giving all their money to their heirs, then the care system will collapse.
If you want to arrive at your care home penniless, that is up to you. But, make no mistake, it is going to be grim.
So, if I save like mad and give all but £100K to them I will be in a private care home, supplied with champagne and living it up?
What I expect is that I will get the basics like you describe and they will take all my savings anyway
I think if you are unable to walk because of advanced dementia, then being able to afford a comfortable wheelchair is not “champagne and living it up”
Your flippant answer suggests you have never been in a residential care home in your life.
Though teh point is absolutely correct , get dementia and the Tories will steal your house.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
Don't see how that's relevant to what I've just said.
I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn and won't be voting Labour at this GE. I've been more than critical of him on here now for years.
Relax, I wasn't having a go at you, just making a rhetorical point. Mind you, a couple of lefties accused me of being a 'liar' and even 'unhinged' this morning because I besmirched their precious man of principle, Mr Corbyn.
So I simply add - 'and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry left-winger who prevents quite (I think he meant quiet) social democratic people from identifying with the Labour Party.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
So you're predicting SCON MPs will be in double figurers.
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Very worrying, if true. He will still have to do it if nothing changes and his house could be taken under existing system.
It's twitter. Land of loons
I thought the PB Tories were all in favour of anecdotage. This has probably as much or as little veracity as some anonymous bloke telling us what another anonymous bloke said about Corbyn down the saloon bar.
A few folk telling similar stories on the phone-ins this week should keep the cluster fuck clustering.
6 Tory gains from the SNP in that chart, not exactly a flop
Actually 3 gains.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
No it isn't, the purple and blue are all Tory gains from the SNP or tossups, that is 6 gains. Even on today's Yougov the SNP are on 44% and the Tories on 28%, a swing of 9.5% from the SNP to the Tories, which would see at least 6 SNP seats fall including Moray held by Angus Robertson, by far the biggest swing to the Tories of any region in the UK, so you are wrong
East Refrew, Moray and Perth are counted as SNP tossups in that calculation:
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
Well if you want a full Scottish poll then Yougov's full Scottish poll last week had it SNP 42% Tory 29%, a swing of 11% from the SNP which would see the Tories pick up 9 SNP seats and very close to taking a 10th. The key in Scotland is to get the SNP below the 45% Yes got in 2014, Davidson remains on course to do that https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
So you're predicting SCON MPs will be in double figurers.
That's one to remember.
It is a possibility on current Scottish polls yes, if they gain at least 9 and add them to the 1 they already have
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?"
What do you like is life in a care home with no money?
If you need a wheelchair, you’ll get a basic wheelchair. But, if you need a comfortable wheelchair that is adapted to your specialist needs, you will have to pay for it.
If you need any kind of dental treatment beyond the bare minimum, you will have to pay for it.
If you want to have your hair done, you will have to pay for it.
If you wish to join an organised trip out to break the monotony of your day, you will have to pay for it.
Life in care home with no money is very unpleasant.
As the demand continues to increase, life in the care home with the Council paying you fees is going to get grimmer. You will get a basic kind of life, propped up in front of the telly in the care home lounge. But that is all you’ll get.
The system is falling to bits. It needs more money. If more and more people game the system by giving all their money to their heirs, then the care system will collapse.
If you want to arrive at your care home penniless, that is up to you. But, make no mistake, it is going to be grim.
So, if I save like mad and give all but £100K to them I will be in a private care home, supplied with champagne and living it up?
What I expect is that I will get the basics like you describe and they will take all my savings anyway
I think if you are unable to walk because of advanced dementia, then being able to afford a comfortable wheelchair is not “champagne and living it up”
Your flippant answer suggests you have never been in a residential care home in your life.
Though teh point is absolutely correct , get dementia and the Tories will steal your house.
Get dementia and the Tories will take less of your house than the council do at the moment.
-or-
Get dementia or don't get dementia and Labour will take as much of your house as they can.
The screenshotted tweets are quite something. One person's father planning to kill himself to save the house for his family - 'He has it all organised.'
Lets hope after gets her thumping majority and we move away from the EU Theresa doesn't feel obliged to do a line dance with the Saudi Sheikhs every time she pulls off an arms deal.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
Relax, I wasn't having a go at you, just making a rhetorical point. Mind you, a couple of lefties accused me of being a 'liar' and even 'unhinged' this morning because I besmirched their precious man of principle, Mr Corbyn.
So I simply add - 'and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry left-winger who prevents quite (I think he meant quiet) social democratic people from identifying with the Labour Party.
Oh yeah, there are definitely *those* types of lefties who have a cult-like devotion to Corbyn and who believe that anyone to the right of him is evil. And those types put off lots of people from identifying with the Labour 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:
Where have you been the last 3 days ? The £23k DID NOT INCLUDE the VALUE of your HOUSE. Now, with £100k, IT DOES !
Geddit !
Too many of the rich turnips on here are thick or pretend to be, They don't get the fact that it is poor people being stiffed. They have all their assets in trusts and hidden away so they will not be affected.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
To be fair his failure to unequivocally repudiate the IRA (how difficult would that have been?) was the lead on the R4 news at 6 just 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.
Therefore - so what?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
And so you were. Anyone would think you were a former MP or something.
I did try and tell him that!
By the way I'm still looking through online Hansard trying to find Corbyn's speeches and votes on the Good Friday Agreement.
lol! I've completed my trolling quota for the day.
Hansard does its best to facilitate searches, but I always find it gives either too much or too little information. So much goes on in Parliament that it's difficult. You might be better off going to his TheyWorkForYou page?
Yeah, there's a lot of cross referencing needed which is difficult if you're not used to the way it all fits together. Would make perfect sense to someone who does it all day, but I don't and I'm on the iPad today rather than the widescreen desktop. It's also completely fascinating and very easy to get distracted with other things long forgotten about that you come across in passing.
I'll keep going though, and on theyworkforyou. I hate not knowing stuff for certain, and when you get called on something it's good to have a definitive answer one way or the other.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
To be fair his failure to unequivocally repudiate the IRA (how difficult would that have been?) was the lead on the R4 news at 6 just now.
He can't, though. He would be condemning his own actions if he did. He is, as his apologists keep reminding us, a 'man of principle'.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Why ? What do you hope to gain by it ? This is now the 4th GE I have posted about on this site . Every GE some twat such as yourself appears following an agenda of their own thankfully to disappear from whence they came as soon as the election is over never to be heard of again .
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
impossible - pb lives for polling, there's an insatiable appetite which means as soon as one is posted and views expressed for a few minutes (panic, complacency, laughter, derision, polling legitimacy re date of survey, sub-samples) then we're all panting for the next one...
There's only ever a short sating of appetite and that's immediately after a UK General Election, it lasts maybe 1 or even 2 weeks and then it's straight back in to the pacman munching of polls again.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
Everything suggests that the Conservatives should still win easily but I think May will have burned a lot of goodwill and the next parliament will be hard.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
The Tory UK manifesto can do nothing about Scottish WFA anyway as it is an area devolved to Holyrood, that is why Davidson issued her own manifesto amending the UK version as appropriate
This was explained yesterday - its not devolved until 2019.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
It is not for Davidson to explain, she simply said she would not oppose Sturgeon's plan to keep Scottish WFA allowance un means tested, Sturgeon is First Minister not Davidson and it is for Sturgeon to say where the money is coming from
May - "WFA costs too much so many of you will lose it" Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
Are those direct and exact quotes? The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
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?
I don't usually comment on other posters, but if I may say so you seem a bit insensitive, both in your response to Yorkcity below and here, and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry right-winger who prevents quite conservative people from identifying with the Conservative Party. The group of people who will at some stage need help at home is not small. It's most of us. And the charges that will now be incurred will mount up with alarming speed (and will affect people directly under the proposal). The people who need to go into care homes is 1 in 6 of us, and they are affected in a big way already (and, to be fair, are helped by the proposal).
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
The Tories, in general, do have an aspect of their base that is exactly like the bit in bold. Empathy for others is key, regardless of your politics.
Nobody can accuse Jeremy Corbyn of not having empathy...for the IRA, Holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, Iran, Russia, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc, etc, etc....
You seem to have a mental fixation about J C and the IRA . You have mentioned it in 1/3rd of your 573 posts . What do you hope to gain by posting it on here every 5 minutes .
Have you actually counted all of the references in all of the relevant posts? That really is a mental fixation. Anyway, I've moved on to his anti-Semitism.
Mark's got nothing else to do these days. His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
impossible - pb lives for polling, there's an insatiable appetite which means as soon as one is posted and views expressed for a few minutes (panic, complacency, laughter, derision, polling legitimacy re date of survey, sub-samples) then we're all panting for the next one...
There's only ever a short sating of appetite and that's immediately after a UK General Election, it lasts maybe 1 or even 2 weeks and then it's straight back in to the pacman munching of polls again.
Comments
A gloriously hot and sunny afternoon in East Sussex. The birds are singing, the sky is blue, the roses are enchanting. England at its very best.
Re this social care proposal: one tweak might be to raise the threshold to £235,000 ie the level at which IHT kicks in. And, maybe, to say that 40% of the estate should be used to pay for the care. There would be a symmetry there with what happens with other estates which might deal with the perception that those needing care are somehow being treated unfairly.
But fundamentally the givernment is right to say that those who have assets and savings should use those for themselves in their old age and not expect others who have less to pay for this.
Me spending money on myself to make myself comfortable when I am fragile is very different to the state taking nearly half my money to spend on others with no benefit either to me or mine.
Finally, re that Abbott quote on bring on the side of those who wanted to defeat the British state: imagine her in charge of the security and intelligence services who work so hard to protect us from those who want to harm us.
The question for me is this: "Can I trust Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbott not to be on the side of those who want to harm the British state and its citizens now?"
And the answer - based on their past history, their equivocations when faced now with what they said then and their whataboutery when faced with the reality of the threats we face - is no.
I don't trust them to protect me and mine from harm because I don't trust them to recognise evil when it is in front of their nose.
I am no fan of Mrs May but on this I trust her more than I can Corbyn and his Leftist acolytes.
So, irrespective of one's views of the changes, I don't think that "so what" is a sensible comment. For most people, it matters much more than most of what we squabble about. Try and empathise a bit, even if you agree with the policy.
It's a hard sell to suggest that an income of £8,286 per annum is a suitable threshold to determine that you're wealthy enough to not need extra help with heating. It almost looks the kind of judgement a "nasty party" might make.
Its predicting 54 SNP and 1 LD MPs which leaves a total of four SCON MPs.
And even if SCON gained six from the SNP they would still have flopped as they would have a grand total of 7/59 MPs in Scotland. By far the worst performance of the Conservatives in any region of Britain.
Anyhow, manifestos are of limited importance in election campaigns. The Tory lead on leadership and on most of the key election issues remains substantial. All will be well.
It also allows them to ask if the moderates have anyone capable of getting a better result, if Brown and Miliband couldn't. Yes, the political environment has changed, but the raw numbers may tell a story of their own.
The moderates attacking him have helped set the expectations about their own side very low. *If* he manages to handsomely exceed those low expectations, he'll be able to stay on. And it will all be the moderates fault.
If.
It would be delightfully amusing if the SLDs ended with more MPs than the SCONs.
Not sure about ComRes, from what TSE told me.
http://scenaripolitici.com/2017/05/uk-general-election-2017-21-may.html
Its a good idea to check things before repeating your mistake.
BTW if you're making calculations from subsamples you've lost the argument.
And 7/59 MPs amounts to 12% of Scottish MPs, approximately half of the next lowest region for the Conservatives.
I had a little insurance bet a couple of weeks ago on Labour to win at 16, something to cheer me up if I had to watch Corbyn walk through No.10 door.
I have no idea how it is dealt with Eire. My citizenship comes from the clause in the Irish constitution that says "born on the island of Ireland". I was born in N. Ireland so I have never lived in the south. I am still in England although I have started organising my "Brexit-proofing"
Nonetheless, you raise a good point - there are no new problems and so other countries will have tackled the "dementia issue" and some of them will have solutions that work. We need to find out what those solutions are and see if they can be applied here.
For example the legislation to end WFA - how many Conservative MPs will rebel if it affects their constituents (and in particular their voters) but not Scottish millionaires.
By the way I'm still looking through online Hansard trying to find Corbyn's speeches and votes on the Good Friday Agreement.
https://twitter.com/faisalislam/status/866333331520200705
I might just hold on to finish above certain key PBers.
His only useful function is in reminding us every time he opens his mouth why we must never vote for his disgusting party.
Incredible that this wretched woman could be the next Home Secretary. Thank God the British public have more sense that that.
It's true now. It's not an incentive (thankfully) that May is introduced.
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/18/voting-intention-scotland-snp-42-con-29-lab-19-15-/
I'm no fan of Jeremy Corbyn and won't be voting Labour at this GE. I've been more than critical of him on here now for years.
Hansard does its best to facilitate searches, but I always find it gives either too much or too little information. So much goes on in Parliament that it's difficult. You might be better off going to his TheyWorkForYou page?
I think a considerable amount of the bad responses to this proposal is people in ignorance of the current system.
Prof Roger Scully @roger_scully
A new Welsh Political Barometer poll is published tomorrow. Just seen the results - gosh. One might even say blimey.
For that comment - at least - I salute his honesty.
So I simply add - 'and in that respect typical of a certain kind of dry left-winger who prevents quite (I think he meant quiet) social democratic people from identifying with the Labour Party.
And did Davidson explain where the extra money was coming from ?
That's one to remember.
A few folk telling similar stories on the phone-ins this week should keep the cluster fuck clustering.
Get dementia and the Tories will take less of your house than the council do at the moment.
-or-
Get dementia or don't get dementia and Labour will take as much of your house as they can.
Shall we start with his long association with everyone's favourite Holocaust denier, Mr Paul Eisen?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/30/pressure-grows-on-jeremy-corbyn-as-dossier-of-anti-semitism-in-l/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3187428/Jeremy-Corbyn-s-links-notorious-Holocaust-denier-revealed.html
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/599327/Jeremy-Corbyn-Deir-Yassin-Remembered-holocaust-Paul-Eisen
https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/revealed-jeremy-corbyn-attended-event-hosted-by-holocaust-denier-s-group-in-2013-1.68163
https://twitter.com/alanferrier/status/866283504333672450
But I wasn't doubting that in my original post.
Con: 44,48, 45,44,48,47,46,49,45,44... bouncy, bouncy......
They really do over-poll.
His house has already been sold to pay for his dementia care.
I'll keep going though, and on theyworkforyou. I hate not knowing stuff for certain, and when you get called on something it's good to have a definitive answer one way or the other.
Davidson - "Everyone in Scotland can keep WFA and someone else can worry about the money"
Do you really not see that the imagery of this is bad for the Conservatives in England and Wales ?
There's only ever a short sating of appetite and that's immediately after a UK General Election, it lasts maybe 1 or even 2 weeks and then it's straight back in to the pacman munching of polls again.
The quotation marks would indicate that you can link to a source.
Sorry guys, independence is inevitable now.