Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
But, I wonder whether postal voters are more committed than average.
I believe many postal voters return the votes almost immediately. Their minds were never going to be changed.
(At least, I’ll be returning my postal vote as soon as I get it.)
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
I just think election campaigns are a giant story making process that is contrived to entertain. It would be boring if Labour or the Tories were 20% ahead all the way through the election. So, newspapers with an eye to making a story get pollsters to adjust samples etc. For instance we always see mid election campaign wobbles, last minute swings and the like. To be honest it is all a load of bullshit and quite tedious. I think the most reliable polls are at the start of the campaign and in the last few days before a GE. Its show business for ugly people!
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
But, I wonder whether postal voters are more committed than average.
I believe many postal voters return the votes almost immediately. Their minds were never going to be changed.
(At least, I’ll be returning my postal vote as soon as I get it.)
SeanT definitely returned his straight away. But then changed his mind immediately thereafter.
A fair few come in at the last minute, and about 25% not at all.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
I would imagine that a decent proportion of the postal votes are returned immediately; others are sent back after spending a few days on the kitchen table; and, IIRC, postal votes are disproportionately requested by the aged in any event. On the latter point, even today's Sunday Times YouGov poll. which is pretty generous to Labour, shows pensioners holding steady for the Tories.
Anyway, not long to go now. In less than three weeks we'll be able to see if the pattern has held.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Nope. (But I hand-delivered a letter there for my then boss in 1983. Nearest I have ever been....)
That building is now "Europe House" - the London base of the European Parliament. So the Tories will have the chance to move back in sometime soon, if they are interested.....
Hopefully they took a nice long lease and the EU will have to pay plenty to break it!
The last time Arsenal finished a league campaign without that particular prize was in 1997. Their final game was at the now-defunct Baseball Ground. The old double act of Ian Wright and Dennis Bergkamp scored the goals.
As it happened, Manchester United finished champions with 75 points that season – exactly what Arsenal collected for this fifth-placed finish.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
But, I wonder whether postal voters are more committed than average.
I believe many postal voters return the votes almost immediately. Their minds were never going to be changed.
(At least, I’ll be returning my postal vote as soon as I get it.)
SeanT definitely returned his straight away. But then changed his mind immediately thereafter.
True. But can we extrapolate anything useful about the general population from SeanT ?
I mean, if we did, we’d conclude that everyone was posting on blogs while drinking fifty pound bottles of wine and with their laptop perched on the petite derriere of a Thai hooker or twenty something student.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
I would imagine that a decent proportion of the postal votes are returned immediately; others are sent back after spending a few days on the kitchen table; and, IIRC, postal votes are disproportionately requested by the aged in any event. On the latter point, even today's Sunday Times YouGov poll. which is pretty generous to Labour, shows pensioners holding steady for the Tories.
Anyway, not long to go now. In less than three weeks we'll be able to see if the pattern has held.
The bias towards the elderly is hugely less than it used to be, in the day when you had to be ill or immobile to get one. Students, shiftworkers, ethnic minorities, and party supporters signed up by canvassers are other categories of PV'ers.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
But, I wonder whether postal voters are more committed than average.
I believe many postal voters return the votes almost immediately. Their minds were never going to be changed.
(At least, I’ll be returning my postal vote as soon as I get it.)
SeanT definitely returned his straight away. But then changed his mind immediately thereafter.
A fair few come in at the last minute, and about 25% not at all.
There's in a nutshell is our favourite pb author and his political weather vane....
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
Funny theory. He doesn't say whether people with postal votes (now massively more than ten or fifteen years ago) go through the same process, but earlier, or post their votes whilst still in altruism mode....
I would imagine that a decent proportion of the postal votes are returned immediately; others are sent back after spending a few days on the kitchen table; and, IIRC, postal votes are disproportionately requested by the aged in any event. On the latter point, even today's Sunday Times YouGov poll. which is pretty generous to Labour, shows pensioners holding steady for the Tories.
Anyway, not long to go now. In less than three weeks we'll be able to see if the pattern has held.
Survation was a day later than YouGov, but the Tories have a 12% lead, instead of YouGov's 9%.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Nope. (But I hand-delivered a letter there for my then boss in 1983. Nearest I have ever been....)
That building is now "Europe House" - the London base of the European Parliament. So the Tories will have the chance to move back in sometime soon, if they are interested.....
Hopefully they took a nice long lease and the EU will have to pay plenty to break it!
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
Google showed a huge amount of cool stuff related to Assistant at I/O last week, Alexa is getting better all the time, and Microsoft's Cortana has a lot of stuff coming down the pipe. Apple's Siri on the other hand has barely improved since release. Apple really struggles to build competitive internet services. Maybe they will show something amazing at WWDC, but people always say that and each year nothing much happens.
It's very striking that Apple still haven't got their own home assistant on the market yet.
20 years ago, they would surely have been the pioneers here, first out of the blocks, in what is clearly going to be the groundbreaking personal tech of the future, the new smartphone, the next PC.
Instead, despite being the biggest tech company in the world, they are letting their rivals steal a march, and they might never catch up, even as they faff around with turkeys like the Apple Watch.
I disagree. I don't know anyone who actively uses any of these 'assistants' on a regular basis. I think Apple have it right. Why would I want to speak to a computer when I could achieve the same result faster by not doing so?
As an Apple fanboy, I want Apple to innovate iOS on iPad rather than mess around with Siri.
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
I just think election campaigns are a giant story making process that is contrived to entertain. It would be boring if Labour or the Tories were 20% ahead all the way through the election. So, newspapers with an eye to making a story get pollsters to adjust samples etc. For instance we always see mid election campaign wobbles, last minute swings and the like. To be honest it is all a load of bullshit and quite tedious. I think the most reliable polls are at the start of the campaign and in the last few days before a GE. Its show business for ugly people!
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
Google showed a huge amount of cool stuff related to Assistant at I/O last week, Alexa is getting better all the time, and Microsoft's Cortana has a lot of stuff coming down the pipe. Apple's Siri on the other hand has barely improved since release. Apple really struggles to build competitive internet services. Maybe they will show something amazing at WWDC, but people always say that and each year nothing much happens.
It's very striking that Apple still haven't got their own home assistant on the market yet.
20 years ago, they would surely have been the pioneers here, first out of the blocks, in what is clearly going to be the groundbreaking personal tech of the future, the new smartphone, the next PC.
Instead, despite being the biggest tech company in the world, they are letting their rivals steal a march, and they might never catch up, even as they faff around with turkeys like the Apple Watch.
20 years ago Apple was about to go bankrupt and only survived due to Microsoft investing 150million inthe the to kill the antitrust case against themselves.
Alexa is a huge amount to of smoke and mirrors that relies on the developers convertingo every so for possible way of saying g a command, it's like a mid 80s text adventure game in its primativeness. Trying to get a podcast that has 'book' in the title to play was infuriating - I've had to write down the exact precise words that are the only way to get it to play rather than have Alexa try and play an audio book.
It's very striking that Apple still haven't got their own home assistant on the market yet.
20 years ago, they would surely have been the pioneers here, first out of the blocks, in what is clearly going to be the groundbreaking personal tech of the future, the new smartphone, the next PC.
Instead, despite being the biggest tech company in the world, they are letting their rivals steal a march, and they might never catch up, even as they faff around with turkeys like the Apple Watch.
My pet theory is that Apple has boxed themselves into a corner with their whole "we don't look at or sell your data, you are the customer not a product" approach. It is very hard to do the sorts of things Google, Amazon, Facebook, and Microsoft are doing without "big data" to mine for training assistants, Apple has to try and do everything privately on the client device rather than with aggregated data in the cloud.
I suspect there are quite a few engineers at Apple who regret some of the public stances Apple has taken over the last few years.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Presumably you think everyone steals from you when you use/buy their services/products?
How do you justify the rich (for if you have assets of more than 100k you are rich compared to the average) being subsided by the poor taxpayer/JAM?
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Looks like ComRes are only polling for Sunday Mirror/IOS and not every week.
It's a shame as a weekly ComRes would help calm down Con supporters - as they and ICM weight on basis of actual past turnout - much more favourable for Con.
And only one ICM this week as well as they missed Sunday.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Bargain. Spot of iht planning and get the premium down to buttons... clever!
It's a shame as a weekly ComRes would help calm down Con supporters - as they and ICM weight on basis of actual past turnout - much more favourable for Con.
IPSOS-MORI does, too. Which gave Labour 34% last week.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Because the poor should pay their fair share too, right? That is Labour now. Defending millionaire pensioners at the expensive of working families. Bevan will be turning in his grave.
It is this kind of fuckwittery that is struck through British politics, like "Brighton" through some pink rock. Hate the opposition voters, hate them for not agreeing with us because we are right you are evil and wrong. Fucking hell.
That's what you get for asking an awkward question of the Nicola.
@AlisonWatters93: @WingsScotland please do what you do best. Do some digging and get us the right info on her and who she is/what she does twitter.com/mrmalky/status…
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Because the poor should pay their fair share too, right? That is Labour now. Defending millionaire pensioners at the expensive of working families. Bevan will be turning in his grave.
Remarkable lefties wanting a flat rate tax with wide open gaps for the wealthy to navigate around. I'm feeling very confused, that's my job normally!
I disagree. I don't know anyone who actively uses any of these 'assistants' on a regular basis. I think Apple have it right. Why would I want to speak to a computer when I could achieve the same result faster by not doing so?
You could have written much the same around 2005 or earlier about smartphones. There were people like me with smartphones, and PDAs before that, but we were few and far between. Then came the iPhone and Android and everything changed.
Assistants are at a similar stage to early smartphones, the must have device, the killer apps, and the widespread adoption are yet to come.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
£2m home and no savings and they're off scot free. And Jezza's team is going in to bat for such people.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Because the poor should pay their fair share too, right? That is Labour now. Defending millionaire pensioners at the expensive of working families. Bevan will be turning in his grave.
Remarkable lefties wanting a flat rate tax with wide open gaps for the wealthy to navigate around. I'm feeling very confused, that's my job normally!
People don't listen to the arguments anymore, they just pick a side and disagree with the other
That's what you get for asking an awkward question of the Nicola.
@AlisonWatters93: @WingsScotland please do what you do best. Do some digging and get us the right info on her and who she is/what she does twitter.com/mrmalky/status…
Stephen Bush from the New Statesman, on the Labour surge:
I have a theory as to why, historically, this point in the electoral process (around 3 weeks out) tends to be "peak Labour" as far as the polls go. (In 1997, they were polling at or above 50% at this stage in the race, they got 43%. In 2001, they were again hovering around the 50% mark and then got 41%. In 2005, they were on 40% and ended up with 35%. In 1987 they were at 35% and ended up with 30%. In 1983 they were at 35% and got 27%.)
Labour's core coalition are people either in or concerned about poverty. (The historical difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is their core tends to be solely made up of people concerned about poverty) Their strongest card is altruism.
At the beginning of an election, people get into election mode, and they think "Hey, I'm concerned about the world. I care. People have had a rough time." That's the point we're at now.
Over the coming weeks something happens. People start to think: "You know, I've worked hard. I deserve a little something for myself."
And by election day, people are back to self-interest, an emotion that, fairly or unfairly, is more associated with the right in general and the Conservatives in particular.
This theory may turn out to be unfairly cynical/unduly pessimistic, but I'm writing it up as part of that whole "committing my priors to paper" thing.
(I neither endorse not refute his theory. Just thought it interesting.)
I just think election campaigns are a giant story making process that is contrived to entertain. It would be boring if Labour or the Tories were 20% ahead all the way through the election. So, newspapers with an eye to making a story get pollsters to adjust samples etc. For instance we always see mid election campaign wobbles, last minute swings and the like. To be honest it is all a load of bullshit and quite tedious. I think the most reliable polls are at the start of the campaign and in the last few days before a GE. Its show business for ugly people!
"Are you not entertained? Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?"
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
Google showed a huge amount of cool stuff related to Assistant at I/O last week, Alexa is getting better all the time, and Microsoft's Cortana has a lot of stuff coming down the pipe. Apple's Siri on the other hand has barely improved since release. Apple really struggles to build competitive internet services. Maybe they will show something amazing at WWDC, but people always say that and each year nothing much happens.
It's very striking that Apple still haven't got their own home assistant on the market yet.
20 years ago, they would surely have been the pioneers here, first out of the blocks, in what is clearly going to be the groundbreaking personal tech of the future, the new smartphone, the next PC.
Instead, despite being the biggest tech company in the world, they are letting their rivals steal a march, and they might never catch up, even as they faff around with turkeys like the Apple Watch.
20 years ago Apple was about to go bankrupt and only survived due to Microsoft investing 150million inthe the to kill the antitrust case against themselves.
Alexa is a huge amount to of smoke and mirrors that relies on the developers convertingo every so for possible way of saying g a command, it's like a mid 80s text adventure game in its primativeness. Trying to get a podcast that has 'book' in the title to play was infuriating - I've had to write down the exact precise words that are the only way to get it to play rather than have Alexa try and play an audio book.
Funnily enough, it was also their stake in ARM just as it started to take off that helped keep them afloat.
Critiquing new form of devices for not being perfect in their first or second incarnations is kind of missing the point. For once, Sean is probably right.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Because the poor should pay their fair share too, right? That is Labour now. Defending millionaire pensioners at the expensive of working families. Bevan will be turning in his grave.
Remarkable lefties wanting a flat rate tax with wide open gaps for the wealthy to navigate around. I'm feeling very confused, that's my job normally!
People don't listen to the arguments anymore, they just pick a side and disagree with the other
Agreed. I'm afraid the death tax scares in 2010 gives us blues no high ground either... politics being a dirty husiness...
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
£2m home and no savings and they're off scot free. And Jezza's team is going in to bat for such people.
@andrewbensonf1: Ed Carpenter, last man, goes 2nd, so Alonso qualifies fifth on Indy 500 debut. For context, Mansell was eighth, in what was his fourth race
That's what you get for asking an awkward question of the Nicola.
A twitter stoning is one of the worst modern day sights
Jon Ronson wrote a good book called So You've Been Publicly Shamed about this kind of mob behaviour against individuals who make "controversial" comments. It covers some well known cases, and I admit that all though I don't join in such abuse I used to think "they deserve it" about many of these events.
After reading his book you realise that even some of the worst things people appear to say or do might have an explanation or context that absolves them. None of the people in the book deserved what happened to their lives as a consequence, the abuse they received and the penalty they paid in real life far exceeded in many cases anything the law might have even done to them.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
£2m home and no savings and they're off scot free. And Jezza's team is going in to bat for such people.
@Gillian_Philip: See @brianspanner1 timeline if you want to know where the well-paid SNP spin doctors got their iron-clad intelligence about the nurse.
You could have written much the same around 2005 or earlier about smartphones. There were people like me with smartphones, and PDAs before that, but we were few and far between. Then came the iPhone and Android and everything changed.
Yeah, I had one around 2004 iirc (an MDA Compact), and was on the internet in 1993 - saw the potential a long way ahead. Assistants are just shite though.
So I've had the Amazon Echo (Alexa!) and Google Home (OK Google!) for two days now. An interesting comparison.
Google showed a huge amount of cool stuff related to Assistant at I/O last week, Alexa is getting better all the time, and Microsoft's Cortana has a lot of stuff coming down the pipe. Apple's Siri on the other hand has barely improved since release. Apple really struggles to build competitive internet services. Maybe they will show something amazing at WWDC, but people always say that and each year nothing much happens.
It's very striking that Apple still haven't got their own home assistant on the market yet.
20 years ago, they would surely have been the pioneers here, first out of the blocks, in what is clearly going to be the groundbreaking personal tech of the future, the new smartphone, the next PC.
Instead, despite being the biggest tech company in the world, they are letting their rivals steal a march, and they might never catch up, even as they faff around with turkeys like the Apple Watch.
20 years ago Apple was about to go bankrupt and only survived due to Microsoft investing 150million inthe the to kill the antitrust case against themselves.
Alexa is a huge amount to of smoke and mirrors that relies on the developers convertingo every so for possible way of saying g a command, it's like a mid 80s text adventure game in its primativeness. Trying to get a podcast that has 'book' in the title to play was infuriating - I've had to write down the exact precise words that are the only way to get it to play rather than have Alexa try and play an audio book.
Funnily enough, it was also their stake in ARM just as it started to take off that helped keep them afloat.
Critiquing new form of devices for not being perfect in their first or second incarnations is kind of missing the point. For once, Sean is probably right.
Google Home is vastly more sophisticated in parsing your meaning, Alexa's parsing algorithms are about as advanced as the Hobbit on the ZX Spectrum.
It's a shame as a weekly ComRes would help calm down Con supporters - as they and ICM weight on basis of actual past turnout - much more favourable for Con.
IPSOS-MORI does, too. Which gave Labour 34% last week.
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Bargain. Spot of iht planning and get the premium down to buttons... clever!
Same planning works with Tory proposal though get your house in Trust and Nil pence
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
£2m home and no savings and they're off scot free. And Jezza's team is going in to bat for such people.
Not on IHT he is not,
Indeed. The point being there is no safe haven for wealthy pensioners right now.
Apart from UKIP, they want to abolish inheritance tax completely, oppose May's plans to make the home liable for personal care costs and would integrate the NHS and social care, want to keep the triple lock and full WFA payments and are firmly behind Brexit but I doubt any of that will stop Nuttall from losing over half his voters, especially pensioners
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
£2m home and no savings and they're off scot free. And Jezza's team is going in to bat for such people.
Not on IHT he is not,
Indeed. The point being there is no safe haven for wealthy pensioners right now.
Apart from UKIP, they want to abolish inheritance tax completely, oppose May's plans to make the home liable for personal care costs and would integrate the NHS and social care, want to keep the triple lock and full WFA payments and are firmly behind Brexit but I doubt any of that will stop Nuttall from losing over half his voters, especially pensioners
UKIP voters can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. They can now head back to their old allegiances.
People who say they are "happy to pay more tax" tend to go quiet when it's pointed out that the Revenue accept donations.
They're probably trying to work out how to deal with such an utterly asinine point. We could abolish most of the democratic process if this were a valid argument. I'll suggest to my local Councillor that she try it on next time she has people on at her about needing a lower speed limit - "Oh, those people tend to go quiet if you point out that they are free to drive their own cars more slowly".
That's much better. Mrs Strong&Stable back on the front pages.
The best way for the Tories to approach the Care Issue is for Theresa May to expend some of her undoubted mountain of personal capital with the voters. She has to go in to bat.
She is sticking by the policy because it is the fair thing to do. Yes, the new system is not perfect, and there will be some losers - some may not get the full level of inheritance they were hoping for. This will be looked at - and efforts made to minimise the impact where possible.
But the system will ensure couples are now able to pass on £200,000 of their wealth - up from £46,000. It will cure the iniquity of people being to forced to sell their property in their lifetime to cover the cost of their care bills. Yes, some of the wealthiest might have their net worth exposed to being used to meet the cost of their future care needs. We will look to ensuring there is an insurance to reduce that risk - perhaps a state-backed scheme where the premiums also come out of the sale proceeds of the home after death.
But the change embodied in these proposals is needed. Successive Governments have shied away from dealing with this vitally important issue. They put it in the "too difficult to do" box. The Labour Party continues to do so. They just assume that their magic money tree will continue to provide. Well, I am not afraid to take the tough decisions, to make hard choices.
Many will have heard scare stories about how their houses will be stolen. This is the lowest form of politics from people who should know better, but will resort to any low trick to grab your vote. Believe me when I say, we have looked at the alternatives, but what we have proposed is the fairest basis.
Do you work in CCHQ ?
Indeed where Grandma survives Grandpa or vice versa and then needs social care. All but 100k is taken stolen reclaimed call it what you wish by the Govt.
Should this also apply if they own a £2M home? What value is acceptable?
Hated Labour death tax of 10% of estate better to me
Bargain. Spot of iht planning and get the premium down to buttons... clever!
Same planning works with Tory proposal though get your house in Trust and Nil pence
Comments
I believe many postal voters return the votes almost immediately. Their minds were never going to be changed.
(At least, I’ll be returning my postal vote as soon as I get it.)
I note there was a study of the impact of drink and long hours on journos posted in the comments today...
A fair few come in at the last minute, and about 25% not at all.
The Scottish debate 'highlights' suggest it was awful.
Anyway, not long to go now. In less than three weeks we'll be able to see if the pattern has held.
As it happened, Manchester United finished champions with 75 points that season – exactly what Arsenal collected for this fifth-placed finish.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2017/may/21/arsenal-stan-kroenke-europa-league-everton
I mean, if we did, we’d conclude that everyone was posting on blogs while drinking fifty pound bottles of wine and with their laptop perched on the petite derriere of a Thai hooker or twenty something student.
AND I very much doubt if many of her fellow nurses will be impressed by her outing them as relying on food banks (probably because they don't).
Seriously are food banks the fault of the Scottish Government rather that the Tories?-seriously!?
Still outside chance of pole.
As an Apple fanboy, I want Apple to innovate iOS on iPad rather than mess around with Siri.
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/866403949615689728
The poor women is getting hell on twitter now.
Her comment in today's Sunday Times is well worth a read -
Especially by PBTories of the wobbly top lip variety.
Alexa is a huge amount to of smoke and mirrors that relies on the developers convertingo every so for possible way of saying g a command, it's like a mid 80s text adventure game in its primativeness. Trying to get a podcast that has 'book' in the title to play was infuriating - I've had to write down the exact precise words that are the only way to get it to play rather than have Alexa try and play an audio book.
I suspect there are quite a few engineers at Apple who regret some of the public stances Apple has taken over the last few years.
How do you justify the rich (for if you have assets of more than 100k you are rich compared to the average) being subsided by the poor taxpayer/JAM?
It's a shame as a weekly ComRes would help calm down Con supporters - as they and ICM weight on basis of actual past turnout - much more favourable for Con.
And only one ICM this week as well as they missed Sunday.
Fucking hell.
Assistants are at a similar stage to early smartphones, the must have device, the killer apps, and the widespread adoption are yet to come.
Critiquing new form of devices for not being perfect in their first or second incarnations is kind of missing the point. For once, Sean is probably right.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/labour-plan-to-impose-inheritance-tax-on-estates-worth-425000-a3529116.html
After reading his book you realise that even some of the worst things people appear to say or do might have an explanation or context that absolves them. None of the people in the book deserved what happened to their lives as a consequence, the abuse they received and the penalty they paid in real life far exceeded in many cases anything the law might have even done to them.
It's horrific
Their selections in the last 9 days denied me the PB Fantasy football title.
Congrats to The Man.
Busy day tomorrow explaining on the doorstep that the Tories want your house now.
Open goal
Not on IHT he is not, McDonnell wants to slash the IHT threshold from the current £850 000 (rising to £1 million by 2020) to £425 000
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/799728/Jeremy-Corbyn-Labour-Party-John-McDonnell-inheritance-tax-general-election
Indeed. The point being there is no safe haven for wealthy pensioners right now.
The wealth tax that McDonnell proposes will even affect under 65 year olds:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/09/revealed-john-mcdonnell-calls-20-per-cent-wealth-tax-richest/
When in a hole, stop digging.
Russian roulette.
Under Labour's proposals, every chamber is loaded.....
Yes. The MacBook Pro is a heavy duty workhorse. A serious machine.
www.biasedbbc.org
Norman "Stormin' Norman" Tebbitt would consider PB dangerously left wing
Oh.
Treason's Bitch.
If you didn't, please describe your house.