politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Survation phone poll has CON lead down 10 points in a week to
Comments
-
Nick - I think this is the best post from you that I've ever read!NickPalmer said:
Yes, that occurred to me - a real election-winner there, not to be confused with a bribefoxinsoxuk said:
What grads need is for Jezzas plan to include a waiving of existing student debt, rather than just prospectively. Otherwise we will have a uniquely penalised generation.
. It would however be a leeetle bit expensive, and McDonnell is actually trying to make the manifesto reasonably free of black holes. He's such a boring centrist...
On Tory direction, as Richard says they have a choice this week, with most postal votes arriving in the next couple of days:
1. Argue the case over pensioners. No, it's not a threat to your home, well, no more of a threat than we already have, oh you didn't know? Well, it's like this, pay attention. And the WFA shouldn't go to millionaires, unless they're Scottish millionaires. And the change to the double lock will save a lot of money, but actually won't affect you because inflation is going over 2.5% anyway.
2. Change the subject to Brexit. That's what the election is about, dammit. Stop trying to talk about other stuff, like our manifesto. We shall insist on something, though we can't exactly say what, and we'll be firm and fierce just like 52% of you, and it may cost money but we reserve the right to put your taxes up to pay for it, and no, we won't say how much. Concentrate on how strong and stable we are, like we've shown this week.
3. Change the subject toi the IRA. 40 years ago, Corbyn may or maybe not have been previously on the editorial board of a magazine that you've never heard of which published a nasty jibe about Norman Tebbit, OK so Corbyn wasn't on the board then but anyway, he met Sinn Fein people before the Queen did and it shows he was a terrorist sympathiser, and this election isn't about Brexit and it isn't about what we'll do, it's about stopping Corbyn, that's why we called it three years early, see?
Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.0 -
It depends what you mean by nothing. As already discussed, a huge chunk will never be repaid anyway, there will be a large nominal cost but no actual cost for that bit. As with the dementia tax, the presentation might be worse than the policy. Just pluck a number from thin air and run with it; it is what the government has been doing for years.RobD said:
Yeah, there is no way a £100bn book is going to cost nothing to cancel.chestnut said:Apropos tuition fees:
"Currently more than £10 billion is loaned to students each year. This is likely to grow rapidly over the new few years and the Government expected the value of outstanding loans to reach over £100 billion (2014-15 prices) in 2018"
What happens to the £100bn and the 9% graduate tax (loan repayments) that already exist?
Why is it fair that people who chose to take a different career path - especially the lower paid - subsidise those who go to university?0 -
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?0 -
No Overall Majority bets coming into view? 10 on BF.bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it0 -
If he is that lucid, and of an age where Devon Loch is the natural analogy, he prob has little to fear from dementia.bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it0 -
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/866564158908661762bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it0 -
Another pointless own goal
@BBCVickiYoung: Theresa May arrives in Wrexham - fox hunting protestor is bundled away by police #GE20170 -
The weekend the post ballots arrive, the Tories detonate a huge bomb under their own campaign.
Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.0 -
Tezza is more Weak and Wonky than Strong and Stable.Scott_P said:
Or are the Tezza Strong and Stable Bexit negotiating team, just a bit crap?Dura_Ace said:The Dementia Tax seems a curious and unforced error. Was it simple laziness borne of hubris and complacency?
(I thought of that line last night and have been waiting for the moment...)0 -
Good news for May (if she doesn't fluff it tonight). Corbyn's interview isn't until Friday. Actually, maybe that's good news for Corbyn...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/866564158908661762bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it
0 -
When was the last time a plane flew from Riyadh to Tel Aviv?0
-
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two optionsRobD said:
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.0 -
I saw the care bill being equated to tuition fees on another site earlier.Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't a tax, it's a credit card - consolidate your pesky home care debts onto one 0% interest card and pay nothing till you pop your clogs. To an uber rightist these are just costs for which you are liable in the same way as you are liable to pay to have your car serviced; to the squidgy centre they have an NHS type vibe and should be free at point of supply. I think many people, including me, are more taken aback by what they have learnt in the last 48 hours about how things work now, than by what changes TM proposes to make. Just dreadful presentation from her.williamglenn said:Inheritance tax is often labelled a 'death tax'. Isn't the implication of the dementia tax that we will slowly move to a true death tax where the more expensively you die, the more you pay?
You get the service free at the point of delivery, run up a loan and end up paying it back if you can afford it.
I maintain that simply changing the threshold would kill it as a political issue. I'd Link the protecton level to national or regional average house prices.
0 -
It would be interesting to know how the appallingly unfair present system got established in the first place.Ishmael_Z said:
It isn't a tax, it's a credit card - consolidate your pesky home care debts onto one 0% interest card and pay nothing till you pop your clogs. To an uber rightist these are just costs for which you are liable in the same way as you are liable to pay to have your car serviced; to the squidgy centre they have an NHS type vibe and should be free at point of supply. I think many people, including me, are more taken aback by what they have learnt in the last 48 hours about how things work now, than by what changes TM proposes to make.williamglenn said:Inheritance tax is often labelled a 'death tax'. Isn't the implication of the dementia tax that we will slowly move to a true death tax where the more expensively you die, the more you pay?
I know from rooting around on the Alzheimer’s Society page, that the present system was in place in 2008, as they have a booklet called The Dementia Tax with that date on it.
Is this a New Labour Policy? Or does it go as far back as Major? Or has it always been like this with dementia sufferers paying for their care down to their last 27k?
0 -
Thanks RobD.RobD said:
ICM around midday. Wales YouGov in the evening, maybe 6?Peter_the_Punter said:Can anybody tell me what time today's poll isdue out? I understood that ICM were due to report.
Thanks.0 -
Exactly. I want urgent answers to these types of questions.Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
What about disabled daughters who live with their elderly mother who then needs to go into a home (the mother that is)?0 -
Ishmael_Z said:
If he is that lucid, and of an age where Devon Loch is the natural analogy, he prob has little to fear from dementia.bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it
Don't spoil it from the coalition of chaos (the Chumocracy / Corbyn alliance).
They haven't been so frothy since private polling by hedge funds showed "Remain" was going to win by a landslide.
0 -
Under the proposals I think it is only paid upon death. Not sure how it works at present.Beverley_C said:
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two optionsRobD said:
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
Edit: Oh, you mean when it is due. Yeah, good question. I can't imagine they would let them hold off paying for another 20-30 years.0 -
How many conversations like this are going on all over UK?RobD said:
Under the proposals I think it is only paid upon death. Not sure how it works at present.Beverley_C said:
How do you fund paying whatever costs is put against her share? There are only two optionsRobD said:
Then only 51% of the value is taken into account?Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
- Loan / remortgage
- Sell the house
Neither of which helps my BiL because he is in his 60s so the loan / remortgage option is probably not open to him.
0 -
The smartest approach would be to try to elide the fightback on the social care policy with their main campaign message (remember 'strong and stable', anyone?). For a textbook example of how to do that, listen to Ken Clarke's interview on yesterday's R4 World this Weekend.NickPalmer said:Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.
However, not many politicians are class acts like Ken Clarke, and it's difficult to do without getting very wordy and sounding defensive.0 -
Trawlerman? How dare you! I demand satisfaction.Scrapheap_as_was said:O/T PB Fantasy League.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.0 -
It would be ironic if the woman whose modus operandi is to do everything in the opposite way to Cameron were brought down by an over-reliance on a 37 year old SPAD.rottenborough said:Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.
0 -
You'd like to think so...but the flat-footedness of the response (and indeed, the initial framing) does suggest that is perhaps not the case....dyedwoolie said:
It's really very odd. Unless they have game played this and found that in some water the approach taken maximises vote efficiencyDura_Ace said:The Dementia Tax seems a curious and unforced error. Was it simple laziness borne of hubris and complacency?
I can sort of see how it came about. The opposition are framing you as only for the few, in it for themselves. So you come up with a measure that is about FAIRNESS - no way you could say the Tories are only about looking after their own if they are scrapping Winter Fuel Payments to millionaires, or making the well off pay for their kids' school meals, or ensuring that everybody can pass £100k on to their nearest and dearest, regardless of how much they have to spend on their end-of-life care costs.
All of which should work well in those Midlands/Northern marginals. Unless your opponents get their take on your policy out first....0 -
Errm. Good news? Only if postal voters are sat there with the form in their hand going 'Ummm, this Dementia Tax thingy, bit worrying..."RobD said:
Good news for May (if she doesn't fluff it tonight). Corbyn's interview isn't until Friday. Actually, maybe that's good news for Corbyn...rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/MichaelLCrick/status/866564158908661762bigjohnowls said:One doorstep just now described the Dementia Tax as the Tories "Devon Loch moment". Said his postal vote had arrived today and was now voting Corbyn after intending to vote for that stupid woman.
Loving this.
Everybody is on about it0 -
I can't imagine any SPA responsible for this is 37 years old. 27 perhaps..williamglenn said:
It would be ironic if the woman whose modus operandi is to do everything in the opposite way to Cameron were brought down by an over-reliance on a 37 year old SPAD.rottenborough said:Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.
0 -
I note Nick Timothy describes himself as a "Villan" (Villa supporter). Surely May should have known better.0
-
I don't think Theresa May is interested in Brexit. Which is worrying.dyedwoolie said:
It's bizarre. She wanted a mandate for Brexit and instead has campaigned solely on pissing off her own support base. It's really very odd. Unless they have game played this and found that in some way the approach taken maximises vote efficiencyDura_Ace said:The Dementia Tax seems a curious and unforced error. Was it simple laziness borne of hubris and complacency?
In fact not many people at the top level in politics are interested in Brexit. I don't think Jeremy Corbyn is either. David Davis obviously is. Tim Farron is, much good that's doing him.0 -
I know one that did Riyadh to Tel Aviv.Sandpit said:When was the last time a plane flew from Riyadh to Tel Aviv?
That was in August 1990.
Carried Dick Cheney, then US Defense Secretary, this was shortly after Iraq has invaded Kuwait.
King Fahd had accepted the need for foreign troops in Saudi Arabia and Israel was told they had to keep quiet if Iraq provoked them.0 -
I thought i was being unduly kind given some of your trolling re certain football teams in certain headers...TheScreamingEagles said:
Trawlerman? How dare you! I demand satisfaction.Scrapheap_as_was said:O/T PB Fantasy League.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.0 -
The reason I originally said I was flabbergasted is that the IFS apparently wasn't sure whether there would be any net benefit to the Exchequer.Sandpit said:
The benefit to the Exchequer is massive, based on in-home care now becoming chargeable for all with property assets. £10bn a year over time seems to be the consensus here.Chris said:
Yes.IanB2 said:
Residential care is expensive, and they are leaving such folks with an extra £76k when the average equity in property probably isn't much above £100k to begin with. Balanced by the saving by making people with more equity than that pay towards home care.Chris said:
I was flabbergasted when someone posted a statement from the IFS casting doubt on whether the Conservatives' proposed changes will raise any extra money at all!YBarddCwsc said:
I don’t know who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan.Pulpstar said:
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?YBarddCwsc said:
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.Pulpstar said:
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking.glw said:
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.RobD said:There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
Given that May has cooked this up herself in private, it really is a key question for Mr Neil tonight to be asking about the numbers. Abbot has set the benchmark for Mrs M to beat...
I didn't mean I was flabbergasted because it seemed self-evident from the numbers that it would raise extra money - it was more that I didn't think they would have proposed something so potentially unpopular if the benefit to the public finances was so marginal.0 -
Mr. Borough, they'll be studying it either way.
I agree it's monumentally stupid. If better lines were ready to defend it (raising the amount left from 23-100k, ensuring nobody has to sell their home etc) it'd at least be less bad, but the lack of though on an emotive policy area a few weeks before polling day, inserted at the last minute despite protests, not war-gamed at all, is just incredible.0 -
-
Blimey. A U-turn is surely worse??Scott_P said:0 -
and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
0 -
https://twitter.com/WillHeaven/status/866546974245433344
Political hero: Joseph Chamberlain. 230 seat swing against the Tories in the 1906 election.0 -
I have no idea what you are talking about.Scrapheap_as_was said:
I thought i was being unduly kind given some of your trolling re certain football teams in certain headers...TheScreamingEagles said:
Trawlerman? How dare you! I demand satisfaction.Scrapheap_as_was said:O/T PB Fantasy League.
Congratulations to 'The Man' for topping the league this season scoring 2,278 points and coming 17,765th in the whole competition (from 4,503,345 players) which is top 0.39%.
This was achieved despite the obvious drawback of being a Baggies fan.
The 'bridesmaid' second prize appropriately goes to a certain Spurs fan [cough] and third to TLG's XI outperforming his own team by actually making it in to the hallowed PB top 4.....
The also ran's saw 4th placed Liverpool fan and occasional trawlerman, TSE, match his own team's performance whereas a certain Leicester 'fox' fan saw his own PB Fantasy position match his teams return to earth this season ending up 9th.
The battle for bottom came down to just 1 point in the end (1,521 vs 1,522 points) with Liverpool City Tigers just behind 3 quidder and able to claim last place with a position of 3,433,379.
Which co-incidentally is how much each new policeman will cost when Diane Abbot sweeps in to the Home Office as now anticipated by more flaky PB community members.0 -
For anyone who thinks things could not get worse: what hasn't been dwelt on is that you only get the benefit of the last £100,000 being ringfenced if you need a carer because you are ill (with dementia or whatever); if you have care simply because you are old and weak (but otherwise healthy) you don't. Lovely discussions between the LA and the recently bereaved on the lines of "Sorry love, your mum was a bit confused and incontinent, but not confused and incontinent enough to count as dementia."0
-
There was no cap in the manifesto. This is just about OK - it should have come sooner though.0
-
Revenge is a dish best served on the front pages of a newspaper...TheScreamingEagles said:Yup. The EU will be laughing their bollocks off at this.
0 -
Or a tweetScott_P said:
Revenge is a dish best served on the front pages of a newspaper...TheScreamingEagles said:Yup. The EU will be laughing their bollocks off at this.
0 -
Then only the 51% is liable for the costs. Presumably there is detail to be worked out, but typically you would expect that the government would have a right to sell the house once his mother passes on. (Any coinvestment like this would include the right to force a sale). He would receive 49% + at least £100K (assuming no other dependents)Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?0 -
Actually it probably would cost almost nothing to put a cap on it, especially if it refers only to care in the home, which is unlikely to cost megabucks for any individual - it's long term care in residential homes which is potentially the real money sink for individuals.RobD said:and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
Still, it's entertaining to see that protecting the wealth of the heirs of the well-off is such a priority for so many that it requires a U-turn.0 -
One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.0
-
@ProfChalmers: Osborne can now write something slating May any time he likes and distribute almost a million free copies across London. Must be fun.0
-
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...dyedwoolie said:One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
0 -
Meanwhile in Sotland, Kezia tries to keep her job
@BBCPhilipSim: Kezia Dugdale says SNP were "confronted with reality" in #LeadersDebate, and responded with "smear campaign" and "their usual dirty tricks"
@JamieRoss7: Dugdale on last night's "smear campaign" from the SNP. "They tried their usual dirty tricks but it won't work this time."0 -
Too late. Too late. Too late. I hope she crashes and burns.0
-
Come off it (to quote Adam boulton), this is panicPulpstar said:
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...dyedwoolie said:One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
0 -
So can we now put an end to the ridiculous Theresa May is the new Thatcher meme.
Because the Lady is for turning.0 -
What is the size of the Tory headbanger contingent (and also the size of the hardcore wets as well). How big does the majority need to be to totally marginalise them?0
-
@PolhomeEditor: Looks like Theresa May will announce a social care cap shortly. That's a climbdown on last week's manifesto. Not very strong and stable.
@steve_hawkes: George Osborne's tweet of course came just before Theresa May was due to begin speaking in Wales0 -
Conservatives now 1.06 on the Moist Seats market.dyedwoolie said:
Come off it (to quote Adam boulton), this is panicPulpstar said:
No, the floor will remain. There was no cap mentioned in the manifesto. It's an addition, and a clarification to the policy...dyedwoolie said:One policy is not enough to blow a lead in the teens. Panicking about a slight narrowing on the back of it and torpedoing your own core message is though.
0 -
Turning her guns onto Tories as well:Scott_P said:Meanwhile in Sotland, Kezia tries to keep her job
@BBCPhilipSim: Kezia Dugdale says SNP were "confronted with reality" in #LeadersDebate, and responded with "smear campaign" and "their usual dirty tricks"
@JamieRoss7: Dugdale on last night's "smear campaign" from the SNP. "They tried their usual dirty tricks but it won't work this time."
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/8665999884151398400 -
Mr. Woolie, the alternative is Corbyn.
0 -
0
-
@JohnRentoul: I was told a "clarification" was coming, but I can never be sure if that means "U haven't understood it" or "U-turn". It's a U-turn.0
-
Sky’s Faisal Islam says the Conservatives’ green paper on social care, due after the election, will include plans for a cap.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.0 -
@faisalislam: I understand PM will say Green Paper on social care will now include a cap on total contributions as well as the £100k capital floor0
-
As Pulpstar said, think of it as an "addition"Scott_P said:@JohnRentoul: I was told a "clarification" was coming, but I can never be sure if that means "U haven't understood it" or "U-turn". It's a U-turn.
0 -
Does it matter anymore? This is the worst election campaign I can remember on all fronts. We have a generation of political minnows leading us.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, the alternative is Corbyn.
0 -
It won't put it further back, because it is such a new policy its wasn't in the Budget numbers.RobD said:and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
0 -
-
At least Corbyn is consistent and sticks to what he believes in.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, the alternative is Corbyn.
0 -
Yes, it will be a shocking study in how people will vote for a free owl over a rational economic policy.rottenborough said:The weekend the post ballots arrive, the Tories detonate a huge bomb under their own campaign.
Wow! If this ends badly for May they will be studying this campaign in politics classes for years.0 -
Weak and Wonky, please!logical_song said:0 -
Jesus, May is weak.0
-
Always been a big fan of trident, has he?TheScreamingEagles said:
At least Corbyn is consistent and sticks to what he believes in.Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, the alternative is Corbyn.
0 -
Rolling Manifesto !TheScreamingEagles said:Sky’s Faisal Islam says the Conservatives’ green paper on social care, due after the election, will include plans for a cap.
He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.0 -
Looks like you don't need a coalition in order to have chaos.TheScreamingEagles said:So can we now put an end to the ridiculous Theresa May is the new Thatcher meme.
Because the Lady is for turning.0 -
This whole area is so incredibly difficult. We save during our life - principally - to ensure that we can afford to live when we are no longer able to work. But thanks to a multi-decade housing boom, parents are often sitting on massive amounts of "equity", and the children want to inherit. (Not least because they are typically sitting on large mortgages.)Ishmael_Z said:For anyone who thinks things could not get worse: what hasn't been dwelt on is that you only get the benefit of the last £100,000 being ringfenced if you need a carer because you are ill (with dementia or whatever); if you have care simply because you are old and weak (but otherwise healthy) you don't. Lovely discussions between the LA and the recently bereaved on the lines of "Sorry love, your mum was a bit confused and incontinent, but not confused and incontinent enough to count as dementia."
0 -
So, a spread bet on what the cap will be: opening mid-price £150k?0
-
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?TheScreamingEagles said:He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?0 -
So not only are we the English subsidising the Scots, we're also subsidising the Ramshaggers too
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/8666006291663216650 -
Utterly inept. Awful awful stuff from a 20 plus point lead.SouthamObserver said:Jesus, May is weak.
0 -
Winners never want to crow too much (we're British after all) it's always the losers you hear from.YBarddCwsc said:
I think it is possible, because May’s system produces winners and losers. We are hearing a lot from the losers at the moment.Chris said:
I was flabbergasted when someone posted a statement from the IFS casting doubt on whether the Conservatives' proposed changes will raise any extra money at all!YBarddCwsc said:
I don’t know who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan.Pulpstar said:
Well it sounds like May decided the Tories should be bold and take the plunge (Fair enough). Who came up with the numbers for the Tory plan ?YBarddCwsc said:
The Dilnot proposals came out on 4 July 2011 under the Coalition.Pulpstar said:
Indeed, the utter arrogance of Nick Timothy to sidestep Dilnott on this one is shocking.glw said:
Yeah and capping the maximum you will pay instead of the maximum you will keep would be a lot more politically sellable.RobD said:There was already the Dilnot report, which probably had a a thousand times more man hours spent on it.
If this was 1617 and not 2017, he'd have an appointment at Tower Hill.
Why did the Coalition not implement them?
Why did Osborne/Cameron decide to implement them at a suitably distant date in the future, in 2020?
There are obvious answers to these questions. The Dilnot proposals require a lot of money, and it is politically difficult to identify a palatable way of raising that money.
Much easier to kick the can down the road. As the Coalition did. As Cameron/Osborne did.
However, it is reasonably easy to work out kind of money we need to raise.
The gainers are the people in residential care who pay virtually the full whack at the moment and will in future pay only down to their last 100k. The losers are those with in-home care, because now their house will be included in the assets, and they will pay more.
This is consistent with little extra money being raised, but the existing financial pain being more fairly balanced between those in residential care and those receiving home care.
In a way it's a shame sensible policy proposals in this country e.g Hammond's plan to equalise N.I contributions between employed and self employed workers was another one are inevitably blocked because of the moaning of the losers. Backbench Tory MP's are some of the worst ninnies out there. It's time they (and we) faced up to some hard choices.
0 -
You heard it from me last night.. i was told that there were candidates prepared to resign over this...Scott_P said:
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?TheScreamingEagles said:He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?0 -
So thanks to pressure from the left, the middle classes's inheritances are safe ?
Strange times.
0 -
I bet the Tories wish they could all climb into a time machine right about now and go back to last Thursday morning. Dear oh dear, what a fucking mess.0
-
With the new cap and floor, aren't the Welsh the ones worse off?TheScreamingEagles said:So not only are we the English subsidising the Scots, we're also subsidising the Ramshaggers too
twitter.com/christopherhope/status/8666006291663216650 -
and the more he looks preferable to the shower of sh1t the Conservatives are looking like .Morris_Dancer said:Mr. Woolie, the alternative is Corbyn.
0 -
Kez on a roll !
https://twitter.com/JournoStephen/status/8665981712454574080 -
So he will lose his house but get some money? He has three siblings none of whom have any rights to the house (they all agreed that).Charles said:
Then only the 51% is liable for the costs. Presumably there is detail to be worked out, but typically you would expect that the government would have a right to sell the house once his mother passes on. (Any coinvestment like this would include the right to force a sale). He would receive 49% + at least £100K (assuming no other dependents)Beverley_C said:
What about my brother-in-law who has moved in with his mum to look after after her? He is not a spouse or a civil partner but has a 49% share in her property (she has the other 51%)rottenborough said:
I agree. This is turning toxic.RobD said:
May needs to be all over this tonight. I don't want to go all SeanT, but this is make or break time!Charles said:From the article someone posted earlier. Thought this was interesting.
It helps to look at the numbers. Around one in 10 elderly people will need to spend more than £100,000 on their care costs, with some facing costs as high as £300,000. But the median wealth of people in their seventies, the age when they are most likely to need social care, is only around £150,000. Under the Conservative reforms, the majority of elderly people who need extensive care towards the end of their life would not face any significant out-of-pocket payments. The state would end up providing for them.
So the median person in their 70s pays around 1/3 of care costs. At the top end, people have to pay up to £300,000 (which is at, worst, 75% of their wealth).
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Perhaps a way to improve the politics would be to include, say, a cap on £500,000 on care spending that any individual will need to pay? I don't know the numbers, but presumably that wouldn't end up being a huge commitment for the government?
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-manifesto-pensioners-a7747196.html
I wanted the cap. Looks like that has gone.
So, I want some guarantees on what exactly this deferment of the payment until death means. For example, three different Cabinet ministers talked about this as a positive. Each time, and I was listening carefully, they said "and a spouse would be protected".
What about partners? Civil or otherwise.
Tories like marriage. Are we actually seeing a backdoor method to increase marriage? Surely not in 2017?
I do not think he will be voting Tory0 -
The combination of Nick with Timothy should have set off alarm bells in any right thinking person.Pulpstar said:I note Nick Timothy describes himself as a "Villan" (Villa supporter). Surely May should have known better.
0 -
100k, to make it easy to remember. "Whatever happens, you will never spend more than 100k on care, and whatever happens, you will always have at least 100k to pass on to your loved ones."Richard_Nabavi said:So, a spread bet on what the cap will be: opening mid-price £150k?
0 -
Don't want to sound Marie Antoinette, but for the sort of sums we appear to be talking about (£11,000 a year?) you aren't that well off if you can't cover that out of income and/or selling off the contents of your ISAs. So it's ingenious: it firms up the politics of envy vote by looking as if it panders to the rich, while at the same time actually doing most damage to the only borderline well-off who (unlike the rich) have little or no inbuilt tendency to vote Con.Richard_Nabavi said:
Actually it probably would cost almost nothing to put a cap on it, especially if it refers only to care in the home, which is unlikely to cost megabucks for any individual - it's long term care in residential homes which is potentially the real money sink for individuals.RobD said:and I wonder how many years further back this put the surplus?
Still, it's entertaining to see that protecting the wealth of the heirs of the well-off is such a priority for so many that it requires a U-turn.0 -
They must wish they could flush the entire manifesto down the U-bend and try again.Scott_P said:
@PolhomeEditor: A U-turn on a manifesto commitment BEFORE an election. Is that a first?TheScreamingEagles said:He says the Tories do not accept that this is a U-turn - although, given that last week the Tories were ruling out a cap, most commentators will say that’s exactly what it is.
Will the Tories now take out a Google Ad for U-turn, describing it as a clarification instead?0 -
@krishgm: Between @theresa_may and @jeremycorbyn it is @George_Osborne who is having the best (certainly the most fun) election so far0
-
To be fair however, Corbyn has 'altered' a manifesto item today too,. Just because it's a free owl for students doesn't make it any less brazen.0
-
I'm not sure that the opposite of 'Stong & Stable' is 'Weak & Wonky'.SandyRentool said:
Weak and Wonky, please!logical_song said:
won·ky (wŏng′kē)
adj. won·ki·er, won·ki·est Chiefly British
1. Shaky or unsteady: a wonky table.
2. Out of alignment; crooked: "The door itself looked wonky somehow, not quite square with the building" (Steve Augarde).
3. Not functioning properly or normally: wonky digestion; a wonky phone connection.
4. Mentally unbalanced; crazy.
OK, maybe you're right.0 -
You have to laugh. One incompetent marxist fool, one inept spineless fool and Farron. Wow. What a choice0
-
Yes, I think you're right. But saying "OK, OK, we'll put a cap on it already, details after the election, calm down ffs" doesn't do it. What will happen is that people will start picking holes in the cap (cf. Beverley and Dyedwoolie instantly on this thread) and we'll still be arguing about it for a couple more days. I think the media will get bored and move on by Wednresday, but that's five days on the subject.Richard_Nabavi said:
The smartest approach would be to try to elide the fightback on the social care policy with their main campaign message (remember 'strong and stable', anyone?). For a textbook example of how to do that, listen to Ken Clarke's interview on yesterday's R4 World this Weekend.NickPalmer said:Good luck! But satire aside, the point is that no party can successfully push more than one message at once. As Richard observes, it's a difficult choice for them.
However, not many politicians are class acts like Ken Clarke, and it's difficult to do without getting very wordy and sounding defensive.
The thing is that it's complicated. Offer a simple answer and its gets picked apart. Offer a complicated answer and it sounds defensive. Ken Clarke has a natural authority that helps him do it, but not many politicians do.0
