I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
This has been one of the best PB flounce fests in ages
From tories expecting 200 majorities crapping their going to lose to leftes who labelled Jezza a doonkey saying hes not that bad.
There are a couple of questions I am really interested in getting answers to from Labour supporters.
1. If you opposed Corbyn was it because you didn't think he could win or because you didn't want him to win with the policies he espouses? 2. If you still think the Tories will win is it not better to hope they win really big in order to get rid of Corbyn or do you still have the traditional view of limiting the Tory victory as much as possible?
I do not intend these as leading questions. Personally as someone who will vote Tory at this election I am split completely on the second. I do not find the idea of May with a massive majority at all appealing but at the same time I would love to see the back of Corbyn and a replacement who can provide real opposition throughout the whole Parliament.
I think that Corbyns fate is unaffected by the size of his PLP. The battle will be the same either outcome. A larger PLP will have more sane wing though, and avoids the risk of Lab disappearing into a Trotskyist rump. They will have more to fight on for.
Yep - I agree. If Corbyn does not totally kill Labour off in this election we've seen enough of May now to know that the next five years could be very interesting. She has made some big promises anout what her strength and stability will deliver.
I wonder if this Scottish subsample will excite the people that were excited by the Opinium Scottish subsample?
This reminds me that because they're doing badly in Scotland, Labour are always actually doing very slightly better in England than the headline poll figures state.
As polls are the sum of subsamples (with the assumption that errors in subsamples cancel each other out) then Lab must have a larger share in this poll in England.
This has been one of the best PB flounce fests in ages
From tories expecting 200 majorities crapping their going to lose to leftes who labelled Jezza a doonkey saying hes not that bad.
There are a couple of questions I am really interested in getting answers to from Labour supporters.
1. If you opposed Corbyn was it because you didn't think he could win or because you didn't want him to win with the policies he espouses? 2. If you still think the Tories will win is it not better to hope they win really big in order to get rid of Corbyn or do you still have the traditional view of limiting the Tory victory as much as possible?
I do not intend these as leading questions. Personally as someone who will vote Tory at this election I am split completely on the second. I do not find the idea of May with a massive majority at all appealing but at the same time I would love to see the back of Corbyn and a replacement who can provide real opposition throughout the whole Parliament.
I think that Corbyns fate is unaffected by the size of his PLP. The battle will be the same either outcome. A larger PLP will have more sane wing though, and avoids the risk of Lab disappearing into a Trotskyist rump. They will have more to fight on for.
Yep - I agree. If Corbyn does not totally kill Labour off in this election we've seen enough of May now to know that the next five years could be very interesting. She has made some big promises anout what her strength and stability will deliver.
In as much as May has the benefit of Corbyn as an opponent, Corbyn can breathe easy as long as Farron is in place
The other aspect is the, for me, misrepresentation of the Party's position on Brexit. At no time have I heard anyone advocating ignoring the result of the 23/6 referendum or having a re-run of that referendum. That would be plain wrong - having a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations seems reasonable though of course that pre-supposes some kind of agreement will be reached and there won't be a Britannia-style flounce from Theresa May.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
I wonder if this Scottish subsample will excite the people that were excited by the Opinium Scottish subsample?
The Opinium one was way more fun.
these polls are just nonsense really aren't they if they can be so totally different?
These are subsamples. Subsamples have huge margins of error
What if you add the two subsamples together?
Hmm. That's an interesting question.
Is the MOE on ~15 scottish subsamples added together the same as the MOE on a 1x 1000 person scottish poll?
Assuming they were taken on the same day or over the same fieldwork dates.
If your sample was perfectly random then it wouldn't matter, but because it isn't you have the problem of the subsample not being weighted to demographics, past-vote, etc.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
If the dementia requires nursing care, then the NHS will fund it through NHS continuing care
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
If the dementia requires nursing care, then the NHS will fund it through NHS continuing care
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
Agreed - the Tories need to take a good look at this after the election.
The Labour position only looks good at all because we are comparing it with the historic annihilation we were expecting when the opinion polls were 49-24 in the Tories favour.
This might seem to bolster Corbyn's position in the election's aftermath, but I am not so sure. An election night of a few dozen lost seats to the Conservatives will be painful.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
If the dementia requires nursing care, then the NHS will fund it through NHS continuing care
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
Agreed - the Tories need to take a good look at this after the election.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
The Labour position only looks good at all because we are comparing it with the historic annihilation we were expecting when the opinion polls were 49-24 in the Tories favour.
This might seem to bolster Corbyn's position in the election's aftermath, but I am not so sure. An election night of a few dozen lost seats to the Conservatives will be painful.
The unions will decide.
May has looked far from strong and stable in this election. In fact, she has looked the opposite. Many union leaders may conclude that with a different Labour leader the outcome could well have been a lot more positive.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
No point sugar coating this, disappointing polls for the LDs. It now seems to be a matter of the party saving as much as it can from the wreckage which may be 9 seats or probably less.
Looking at it from the outside as a friend, two observations - first, it's still soon after 2015 and though time has passed, the memory of the Coalition hasn't fully faded. 2022 will be much easier but the memory kinda lingers...(I'm still Eagles it seems).
The other aspect is the, for me, misrepresentation of the Party's position on Brexit. At no time have I heard anyone advocating ignoring the result of the 23/6 referendum or having a re-run of that referendum. That would be plain wrong - having a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations seems reasonable though of course that pre-supposes some kind of agreement will be reached and there won't be a Britannia-style flounce from Theresa May.
There are of course still 12 days to go and if a week is a long time in politics, 12 days is an eternity. There's a huge amount still to happen and it may be that it won't be until after the half term break that we'll see many seriously engage with the election.
Nevertheless only some seat polls will identify the difference between a swing to Labour and a swing against the Tories. National VI is a very poor indication of LibDem seats.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
HIV - absolutely, and with some of the new combo products they have a manageable pill burden as well. The research has moved on to a search for a functional cure.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
On a tangent but relevant is there any care facilities, that you know of that cater for the 60 odd year old with these problems which doesn't involve a typical old people's home?
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
HIV - absolutely, and with some of the new combo products they have a manageable pill burden as well. The research has moved on to a search for a functional cure.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I too do not favour another referendum. The LD party should have advocated an EEA soft Brexit.
Farron was far too quick to make this policy without real consultation.
Sporting Index have again suspended their GE spread markets, I doubt they'll re-open until sometime tomorrow morning if you're lucky .... quelle surprise! The funny thing is that last time around in 2015, it was Spreadex who were were always running scared and closing their markets and Sporting who usually stayed open ..... a complete reversal - I wonder if there has been a swap in their respective personnel?
For what it's worth, thus far there has been little movement with the current spreads being as follows:
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I too do not favour another referendum. The LD party should have advocated an EEA soft Brexit.
Farron was far too quick to make this policy without real consultation.
You defended it at the time.
I remember, because I argued with you that it was a Goddam stupid policy.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
HIV - absolutely, and with some of the new combo products they have a manageable pill burden as well. The research has moved on to a search for a functional cure.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
Why TSE is focusing on lead falling rather than re-establishing is odd given that the first two polls this evening show a higher lead than the last two.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
On a tangent but relevant is there any care facilities, that you know of that cater for the 60 odd year old with these problems which doesn't involve a typical old people's home?
There are some long term NHS units, particularly aimed at the brain injured. I have a friend who is in one, following a stroke aged in his fifties that left him paralysed with major memory problems.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
(A) is probably not an option - why would the EU27 allow it?
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
If the dementia requires nursing care, then the NHS will fund it through NHS continuing care
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
My puzzle lies here: I always thought that any condition that had primarily social-care needs was dealt with in the same way as dementia.
But now it seems that dementia patients are singled out, is that right? and that (e.g.) stroke patients who need on-going residential nursing care are funded by the state?
(My mother had hairy cell leukaemia. After some years of successful treatment, she suddenly went downhill & was taken into hospital. We had just been told that they could do no more for her & she would be transferred to a nursing home when she died. I was under the impression that the same rules applied for her case as for dementia.)
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I gather that is the view among many long standing members and ex-members. Curious to know who will get the blame, who is the LibDem equivalent of Nick Timothy.
The joys of being a Spurs fan. We finally finish above the Gooners in the league, and then have to watch Arsenal win something as we finish empty handed once again....
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
As neither of us are happy with party policy, it suggests the policy is flawed.
I voted LEAVE and before the Referendum, I was a strong advocate of the United Kingdom joining (or re-joining) EFTA after a LEAVE vote and re-invigorating that organisation as a free trade but non-political alternative to the EU (more akin to the original notion of a "common" rather than "single" market in which we would pursue as close an economic relationship as possible while maintaining sovereignty over immigration, regulation and other areas).
I'm still there but I fear I'm alone - there doesn't seem to be anyone within any of the main parties supporting this. Perhaps the world has moved on.
Would you therefore take the view that if the A50 Treaty is not something the party can support, we should vote against it in the Commons (if we have any MPs) and the Lords and have a re-negotiation of that Treaty as a manifesto pledge in 2021 or 2022 ?
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I gather that is the view among many long standing members and ex-members. Curious to know who will get the blame, who is the LibDem equivalent of Nick Timothy.
Guy called Gurling, who is chairing the campaign, doubtless planning out the late surge as we speak.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I gather that is the view among many long standing members and ex-members. Curious to know who will get the blame, who is the LibDem equivalent of Nick Timothy.
The strange thing is that the current Lib Dem strategy on Brexit is in many respects a carbon copy of the failed pre-2015 strategy of branding the Lib Dems as "the party of IN". In both cases, it seems to have been driven by wishful thinking based on the naive observation that the percentage supporting EU membership was much higher than the percentage supporting the Lib Dems.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
If the dementia requires nursing care, then the NHS will fund it through NHS continuing care
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
My puzzle lies here: I always thought that any condition that had primarily social-care needs was dealt with in the same way as dementia.
But now it seems that dementia patients are singled out, is that right? and that (e.g.) stroke patients who need on-going residential nursing care are funded by the state?
(My mother had hairy cell leukaemia. After some years of successful treatment, she suddenly went downhill & was taken into hospital. We had just been told that they could do no more for her & she would be transferred to a nursing home when she died. I was under the impression that the same rules applied for her case as for dementia.)
I only know about dementia, and there unfortunately I know too much.
The difference is probably financial. Dementia patients can live a long time and may need expensive care for many years. Hence, if their care needs can be re-defined as social care, then it really does saves the NHS a lot of money (many billions a year).
My feeling is that social care urgently needs much more money put into it. Either this is raised by taxation or it comes from wealthier patients.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
HIV - absolutely, and with some of the new combo products they have a manageable pill burden as well. The research has moved on to a search for a functional cure.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
I'm surprised by the PB collywobbles. It's hard, nay impossible, to see, given the collapse/absence of Ukip, how the Tories can end up on less than 43-45%. Add in the extra seats in Scotland, the poor distribution of Lab votes in England, and the likelihood that the Lab vote is soft and partly nebulous, and a healthy majority is nailed-on.
Just a warning, Jezza's support for the terrorists speech went down well below the line in the Daily Mail comments. So could be potentially a bounce from that.
I take the view that because they are free to access the Guardian and the DM public comments attract cheapskate window lickers from across the political spectrum and not necessarily ones which fit into their presumed boxes. It's not the politics but the freeness which attracts them.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I too do not favour another referendum. The LD party should have advocated an EEA soft Brexit.
Farron was far too quick to make this policy without real consultation.
You defended it at the time.
I remember, because I argued with you that it was a Goddam stupid policy.
I don't recall ever arguing for a second referendum. Since last July I have advocated preparing for hard Brexit to WTO terms, with a clean break to be followed by a later entry to EEA.
I'm surprised by the PB collywobbles. It's hard, nay impossible, to see, given the collapse/absence of Ukip, how the Tories can end up on less than 43-45%. Add in the extra seats in Scotland, the poor distribution of Lab votes in England, and the likelihood that the Lab vote is soft and partly nebulous, and a healthy majority is nailed-on.
We all know that.
We’re just having fun with SeanT. It is an experiment to see if he can be pushed over the edge.
TSE has a special poll for later this evening which shows Jeremy & Nicola sweeping to power.
And we’ll all be posting anecdotes of long-standing Tories who have changed their minds because of dementia tax and are now voting for Jeremy.
According to the LibDem website (http://www.libdems.org.uk/europe) this is their position: Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
Okay, I have to confess I wasn't aware of that. I'm only a Party member not an official or anyone of importance.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
I'm a Lib Dem member but I think a referendum on A50 is stupid. What's the status quo? We are leaving no matter what and its better to leave it up to experts in the civil service and government than the people on something so important. We can always re-negotiate our relationship at a later date.
I gather that is the view among many long standing members and ex-members. Curious to know who will get the blame, who is the LibDem equivalent of Nick Timothy.
Guy called Gurling, who is chairing the campaign, doubtless planning out the late surge as we speak.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
On a tangent but relevant is there any care facilities, that you know of that cater for the 60 odd year old with these problems which doesn't involve a typical old people's home?
There are some long term NHS units, particularly aimed at the brain injured. I have a friend who is in one, following a stroke aged in his fifties that left him paralysed with major memory problems.
Where in the country are you?
Live in Spain and will stay while I'm fit and capable but need a plan b so will go back to the north west
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
The same manifesto, but without Corbyn, in 2022 against a tired Conservative Party, against the backdrop of a possible recession or badly managed brexit.
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
Where is Labour strong ? The North, London and Wales.
In the North, the swing we are told is to the Tories. So there will be no wasted votes for Labour here.
London and Wales are full of marginals. So I cannot see too many wasted votes.
Now think of East England. 58 seats. Massive UKIP votes. 70-80% going to the Tories. Labour does not lose a single seat.
That is what is called wasted votes.
Labour usually waste a huge number of votes in Merseyside, Manchester, east London. Seats like Liverpool Walton, Knowsley, Manchester Central, East Ham. They pile up much bigger majorities in those types of seats than the Cons do in their safe seats. Tories hardly ever get more than 65% whereas Labour go over 70% in many of their safest constituencies.
No one has been a more ferocious critic of Corbyn than me, particularly because of his support for violent Irish Republicanism. But I think he deserves some credit for the pragmatic, flexible position he compelled Labour to adopt on Brexit after the Referendum, when most of his MPs fervently wanted him to uphold the Remain cause. His judgement proved more shrewd than that of pro-EU moderates. He was helped, of course, because he never really believed in Remain. But still, he ensured that Labour was not caught up in an anti-democratic stance like the Liberal Democrats.
The joys of being a Spurs fan. We finally finish above the Gooners in the league, and then have to watch Arsenal win something as we finish empty handed once again....
Goodbye cruel world!
Well you qualified for the Champions League. Liverpool will have to qualify. Arsenal will play on Thursday nights.
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
Where is Labour strong ? The North, London and Wales.
In the North, the swing we are told is to the Tories. So there will be no wasted votes for Labour here.
London and Wales are full of marginals. So I cannot see too many wasted votes.
Now think of East England. 58 seats. Massive UKIP votes. 70-80% going to the Tories. Labour does not lose a single seat.
That is what is called wasted votes.
Labour usually waste a huge number of votes in Merseyside, Manchester, east London. Seats like Liverpool Walton, Knowsley, Manchester Central, East Ham. They pile up much bigger majorities in those types of seats than the Cons do in their safe seats. Tories hardly ever get more than 65% whereas Labour go over 70% in many of their safest constituencies.
The cities will go very heavily Labour. Probably more so than normal. All these 'new' young voters likely already live in Labour seats.
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
Where is Labour strong ? The North, London and Wales.
In the North, the swing we are told is to the Tories. So there will be no wasted votes for Labour here.
London and Wales are full of marginals. So I cannot see too many wasted votes.
Now think of East England. 58 seats. Massive UKIP votes. 70-80% going to the Tories. Labour does not lose a single seat.
That is what is called wasted votes.
Labour usually waste a huge number of votes in Merseyside, Manchester, east London. Seats like Liverpool Walton, Knowsley, Manchester Central, East Ham. They pile up much bigger majorities in those types of seats than the Cons do in their safe seats. Tories hardly ever get more than 65% whereas Labour go over 70% in many of their safest constituencies.
As if the Tories do not waste votes in the Shires. That is FPTP for you. A dreadful system.
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
The same manifesto, but without Corbyn, in 2022 against a tired Conservative Party, against the backdrop of a possible recession or badly managed brexit.
I think the "same manifesto" would probably get a bit more scrutiny next time...
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
The same manifesto, but without Corbyn, in 2022 against a tired Conservative Party, against the backdrop of a possible recession or badly managed brexit.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
On a tangent but relevant is there any care facilities, that you know of that cater for the 60 odd year old with these problems which doesn't involve a typical old people's home?
There are some long term NHS units, particularly aimed at the brain injured. I have a friend who is in one, following a stroke aged in his fifties that left him paralysed with major memory problems.
Where in the country are you?
Live in Spain and will stay while I'm fit and capable but need a plan b so will go back to the north west
Not a part of the country where I know the medical geography.
While it is not well policed, people who have not lived in the country for a year are not necessarily entitled to NHS treatment. Best to continue at least some nominal residence in a CCG that is sympathetic.
Not sure if I've updated all on here with the state of the campaign here in the Labour heartland of East Ham.
We've had Freepost leaflets from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and while you can file this under "he would say that, wouldn't he ?" the LD leaflet was far better than the Conservative offering.
Saw a couple of Labour activists in the High Street this morning but they were packing up and moving on to perhaps Beckton or maybe Stratford.
No sign of any door canvassing in my neck of the woods thus far.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
Because:
(a) we don't know what causes it (b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
I'm sure I heard recently that, with treatment, HIV patients now have normal life expectancy. And that has taken about 30 years? Is there similar hope on dementia?
HIV - absolutely, and with some of the new combo products they have a manageable pill burden as well. The research has moved on to a search for a functional cure.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
Thanks. Sounds good. ARIA?
Amyloid Related Imaging Abnormalities. It's what has done for the various previous attempts at A-Beta clearing.
The election has opened a lot of people's eyes to social care facts. I knew nothing - now I've maged to google a little. I understand that the costs of residential care are between 30k and 50k per annum, depending on nursing needs, and that home care is around around 6k per year per hour per day (if that makes sense).
The only thing I don't know is what's the prognosis after the first time care is required. Could I live for twenty years after I first needed home care with dementia. Could I live twenty years after residential care was required? Is it likely? What percentage of people end their days in residential care, and on average how long do they stay there?
After seeing the election hoo-haa, any sensible politician might kick it into the long grass. But some public education would be useful.
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
The same manifesto, but without Corbyn, in 2022 against a tired Conservative Party, against the backdrop of a possible recession or badly managed brexit.
Everyone is assuming Brexit will be badly managed. Strange I know but I have considered what if it actually goes quite smoothly? Tories get 'safe hands' credit for years and years.
"Importantly for the Conservatives, more than twice as many voters think Jeremy Corbyn is ‘most likely to protect the interests of older people who are becoming more dependent on the social care system’ (43% to 20%). " - from ComRes
Labour must hammer this in for the next 10 days.
Regarding security from Terrorists, May's preference has dropped 5% in one week. I would have expected her to do better because of her position.
The joys of being a Spurs fan. We finally finish above the Gooners in the league, and then have to watch Arsenal win something as we finish empty handed once again....
Goodbye cruel world!
Not as bad as qualifying for Europe and then missing out because Chelsea win the Champions League...
Just in case our man in Zurich didn't see my post yesterday, canvassed a marginalish ward lastnnight. Mostly pensioners. Tory vote holding strong (indeed several new Con-verts too).
This is beginning to remind me* of the '87 wobble.
I would like a debate on why dementia is not considered a medical issue rather than a social one. Does the cause of the dementia play a role, for example it was acquired as a result of heart failure during an operation rather than just age?
It is a medical condition, but the treatment is essentially supportive nursing care rather than curative.
Stroke is another condition managed much the same, as is endstage osteoporosis or arthritis. Indeed increasingly patients have elements of all of these.
Thanks for that view I have a personal interest inthe situation
The distinction of what is in need of medical rather than social care is an arbitrary and grey one.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
On a tangent but relevant is there any care facilities, that you know of that cater for the 60 odd year old with these problems which doesn't involve a typical old people's home?
There are some long term NHS units, particularly aimed at the brain injured. I have a friend who is in one, following a stroke aged in his fifties that left him paralysed with major memory problems.
Where in the country are you?
Live in Spain and will stay while I'm fit and capable but need a plan b so will go back to the north west
Not a part of the country where I know the medical geography.
While it is not well policed, people who have not lived in the country for a year are not necessarily entitled to NHS treatment. Best to continue at least some nominal residence in a CCG that is sympathetic.
At present I pay all my own medical insurance costs and the cost of medicines, the patches are e100 per month but if I lose the plot she can't stay out here, happy to pay just need to know where to look
average Kantar/YG/SurveyMonkey/ComRes/Opinium Tory lead = 8.6%
44 to 35 on the day, with Labour inefficiently piling up votes in London/Manchester/Liverpool, would give the reds a decent hiding.
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
The other answer, of course, is that it's the Tories that are inefficiently piling up votes in safe seats and it's the JAMs in marginal seats who are suddenly looking at either another five years of thin gruel from Theresa May or a potential transformation of their fortunes under Jeremy Corbyn. The nasty Tories are coming for your house anyway so why not take a risk? Why not vote for someone who'll ensure your kids get a free uni education?
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
A Tory majority of 50 will still mean that Labour has lost another battle on the economy. The are no closer to getting an economic offering that will get them into power. They will have tried hard left, sweeties for all - what next?
The same manifesto, but without Corbyn, in 2022 against a tired Conservative Party, against the backdrop of a possible recession or badly managed brexit.
Typical Lefty wishful thinking.
Not a lefty.
And what part of Theresa May's campaign so far has left you in any doubt that she's a bumbling fool surrounded by idiots, who will make repeated and unforced errors over the course of the next five years?
And what part of the last couple of years has suggested to you Corbyn will hand over the reigns of the Labour Party to anyone other than a hard left successor, and that the membership will back him?
And why is it so hard to imagine a financial crisis like 2008 could propel Corbyn or his anointed successor into power?
Wishful thinking?
It's the sort of nightmare that makes you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
Not sure if I've updated all on here with the state of the campaign here in the Labour heartland of East Ham.
We've had Freepost leaflets from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and while you can file this under "he would say that, wouldn't he ?" the LD leaflet was far better than the Conservative offering.
Saw a couple of Labour activists in the High Street this morning but they were packing up and moving on to perhaps Beckton or maybe Stratford.
No sign of any door canvassing in my neck of the woods thus far.
Even at peak Tory I think East Ham was safe. No need to repair the doorbell.
My puzzle lies here: I always thought that any condition that had primarily social-care needs was dealt with in the same way as dementia.
But now it seems that dementia patients are singled out, is that right? and that (e.g.) stroke patients who need on-going residential nursing care are funded by the state?
(My mother had hairy cell leukaemia. After some years of successful treatment, she suddenly went downhill & was taken into hospital. We had just been told that they could do no more for her & she would be transferred to a nursing home when she died. I was under the impression that the same rules applied for her case as for dementia.)
I only know about dementia, and there unfortunately I know too much.
The difference is probably financial. Dementia patients can live a long time and may need expensive care for many years. Hence, if their care needs can be re-defined as social care, then it really does saves the NHS a lot of money (many billions a year).
My feeling is that social care urgently needs much more money put into it. Either this is raised by taxation or it comes from wealthier patients.
I see .... so probably there is no difference in the care or the funding, it's just the longer life-expectancy.
Guy called Gurling, who is chairing the campaign, doubtless planning out the late surge as we speak.
CK brother in law?
Yes, he is/was.
The LDs have finally woken up today to education being potentially their strongest suit in this election, even though the chosen message (defending the universal, untargeted free school meals for little ones) is not exactly the strongest.
If the LDs bombarded every letterbox in their target seats with the New Funding Formula numbers from https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk - i.e. "your local school, Little Sodbury Primary, will lose 10% of its budget if Theresa May is re-elected" - I would have more hope for their prospects. So far they just haven't found a message that will cut through.
Just in case our man in Zurich didn't see my post yesterday, canvassed a marginalish ward lastnnight. Mostly pensioners. Tory vote holding strong (indeed several new Con-verts too).
This is beginning to remind me* of the '87 wobble.
Just a warning, Jezza's support for the terrorists speech went down well below the line in the Daily Mail comments. So could be potentially a bounce from that.
Corbyn cleverly conflated isolation, which is definitely a popular idea not least as the main driver for Brexit, with pacifism, which isn't.
The other aspect is the, for me, misrepresentation of the Party's position on Brexit. At no time have I heard anyone advocating ignoring the result of the 23/6 referendum or having a re-run of that referendum. That would be plain wrong - having a referendum on the outcome of the A50 negotiations seems reasonable though of course that pre-supposes some kind of agreement will be reached and there won't be a Britannia-style flounce from Theresa May.
It would be a better candidate for misrepresentation if the Lib Dems had respected the referendum result by proposing a referendum on a brexit deal where a democratic rejection of any deal implied upholding the initial referendum result rather than overturning it.
Comments
But probably not enough for Corbyn to feel any pressure to move on.
What a shame....
(a) we don't know what causes it
(b) we can't treat it
(You may think I'm being trite, but I'm not. There are no disease-modifiers that have been approved, although there are some very interesting approaches in development. Personally I lean toward the A-Beta theory, although can see some role for Alpha-syn and Tau. In the end I suspect that a combination approach is what will be needed, as with HIV, HBV, HCV, immuno-oncology, etc. However our current therapies are just symptomatic agents)
Every vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote to give the final say to the British people in a referendum on whether to accept the deal or remain in the EU.
Which ever way you try to spin it this is the old EU tactic of getting people to vote again when you don't like the result!
Seriously Stodge, a poster of your calibre is better than this.
1) Dunbartonshire East
2) Norfolk North
3) Twickenham
Increasingly, there is the Corbyn factor.
These two do not go together. If Corbyn is bringing in 5% who have never or rarely voted, they would not be picked up.
Those polls which take into account certainty to vote will pick them up, provided they are in the voting panels.
If the dementia requires social care, then you have to pay for the care.
There is an entire industry in the NHS which basically looks at old people with dementia, and decides whether their needs are primarily medical or primarily social care. If the needs are primarily medical, then the NHS will pay, but as the NHS has little money it routinely finds that the needs of dementia patients are not medical but social.
Even if continuing care is awarded, it is reassessed every six months, and can be taken away.
It is a very ugly part of the NHS. It has been like this for decades.
Whatever the rights of Theresa May’s proposal, the furore has caused a searchlight to be shone at a very dirty and little-known aspect of care for the elderly in the NHS.
(My mother died of dementia a couple of years ago).
Can anybody think of any recent examples where an anti-establishment candidate has come from behind to silence the critics in his own party then win a shocking victory, or where a bunch of rag-tag renegades have promised mythical sums to be spent on, say, the NHS, if we vote for them, and won?
For the record I don't think Corbyn will win but a Tory majority of 50 or less will be a de facto defeat for Theresa May and the hard left may well find themselves in power in 2022.
This might seem to bolster Corbyn's position in the election's aftermath, but I am not so sure. An election night of a few dozen lost seats to the Conservatives will be painful.
One reason we get patients stuck in hospital is that funding comes from different sources. Inpatient care is paid by the state, but if discharged the costs increasingly fall on the patient, or their family. With the move increasingly to out of hospital community care for these long term conditions, and closures of medical inpatient beds, this represents a net transfer of cost to the patient (or family). It could reasonably be seen as stealth privatisation, at least until May made it anything but stealthy!
It also gives families an incentive to delay discharges, snarling up the system, and delaying admissions by the secondary logjam.
In the North, the swing we are told is to the Tories. So there will be no wasted votes for Labour here.
London and Wales are full of marginals. So I cannot see too many wasted votes.
Now think of East England. 58 seats. Massive UKIP votes. 70-80% going to the Tories.
Labour does not lose a single seat.
That is what is called wasted votes.
May has looked far from strong and stable in this election. In fact, she has looked the opposite. Many union leaders may conclude that with a different Labour leader the outcome could well have been a lot more positive.
I'm a supporter of a referendum on the A50 deal - it will be a treaty which will form an integral part of Britain's economic relationship with the EU and it's to me right and proper the people should have a say.
What needs to be worked out is what happens if the people reject the Treaty - it must either be a) return to the negotiating table or b) abandon all negotiations and leave the EU without a deal. I favour option a) but there will be those who prefer option b) echoing the line a bad deal is worse than no deal.
I do think this is a poor option by the LDs - inasmuch as we would remain in the EU pending further negotiations, it's valid but it sends out a hugely inaccurate message that if we reject May's A50 treaty it will be a reversion to the pre-referendum status.
On neurodegeneration, there is some really exciting stuff going on. I had a very brief call with someone on Thursday who gave me headlines on some data from an ongoing trial - great efficacy and no ARIA. So am quietly excited!
Farron was far too quick to make this policy without real consultation.
The funny thing is that last time around in 2015, it was Spreadex who were were always running scared and closing their markets and Sporting who usually stayed open ..... a complete reversal - I wonder if there has been a swap in their respective personnel?
For what it's worth, thus far there has been little movement with the current spreads being as follows:
Spreadex
Con .......... 375 - 381
Lab ........... 182 - 188
LibDem ....... 14 - 17
IG
Con .......... 378 - 384
Lab ........... 178 - 183
LibDems ....12.5 - 15
I remember, because I argued with you that it was a Goddam stupid policy.
amyloid related imaging abnormalities
obviously.
(closes google tab)
Where in the country are you?
But now it seems that dementia patients are singled out, is that right? and that (e.g.) stroke patients who need on-going residential nursing care are funded by the state?
(My mother had hairy cell leukaemia. After some years of successful treatment, she suddenly went downhill & was taken into hospital. We had just been told that they could do no more for her & she would be transferred to a nursing home when she died. I was under the impression that the same rules applied for her case as for dementia.)
I never thought they'd beat Chelsea.
We finally finish above the Gooners in the league, and then have to watch Arsenal win something as we finish empty handed once again....
Goodbye cruel world!
I voted LEAVE and before the Referendum, I was a strong advocate of the United Kingdom joining (or re-joining) EFTA after a LEAVE vote and re-invigorating that organisation as a free trade but non-political alternative to the EU (more akin to the original notion of a "common" rather than "single" market in which we would pursue as close an economic relationship as possible while maintaining sovereignty over immigration, regulation and other areas).
I'm still there but I fear I'm alone - there doesn't seem to be anyone within any of the main parties supporting this. Perhaps the world has moved on.
Would you therefore take the view that if the A50 Treaty is not something the party can support, we should vote against it in the Commons (if we have any MPs) and the Lords and have a re-negotiation of that Treaty as a manifesto pledge in 2021 or 2022 ?
The difference is probably financial. Dementia patients can live a long time and may need expensive care for many years. Hence, if their care needs can be re-defined as social care, then it really does saves the NHS a lot of money (many billions a year).
My feeling is that social care urgently needs much more money put into it. Either this is raised by taxation or it comes from wealthier patients.
You may well be mixing me up with someone else.
We’re just having fun with SeanT. It is an experiment to see if he can be pushed over the edge.
TSE has a special poll for later this evening which shows Jeremy & Nicola sweeping to power.
And we’ll all be posting anecdotes of long-standing Tories who have changed their minds because of dementia tax and are now voting for Jeremy.
Guy called Gurling, who is chairing the campaign, doubtless planning out the late surge as we speak.
CK brother in law?
Age UK says exercise and diet help lessen Alzheimer’s risk and healthy activities may cut threat of dementia by 36%"
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/dec/15/lifestyle-dementia-exercise-diet-alzheimers-charity
Britain Elects @britainelects 2h2 hours ago
On who is most likely to protect the interests of older people dependent on the social care system:
T. May: 20%
J. Corbyn: 43%
(@ComRes)
While it is not well policed, people who have not lived in the country for a year are not necessarily entitled to NHS treatment. Best to continue at least some nominal residence in a CCG that is sympathetic.
We've had Freepost leaflets from both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats and while you can file this under "he would say that, wouldn't he ?" the LD leaflet was far better than the Conservative offering.
Saw a couple of Labour activists in the High Street this morning but they were packing up and moving on to perhaps Beckton or maybe Stratford.
No sign of any door canvassing in my neck of the woods thus far.
The only thing I don't know is what's the prognosis after the first time care is required. Could I live for twenty years after I first needed home care with dementia. Could I live twenty years after residential care was required? Is it likely? What percentage of people end their days in residential care, and on average how long do they stay there?
After seeing the election hoo-haa, any sensible politician might kick it into the long grass. But some public education would be useful.
Labour must hammer this in for the next 10 days.
Regarding security from Terrorists, May's preference has dropped 5% in one week. I would have expected her to do better because of her position.
https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/
Hhhmmm.
This is beginning to remind me* of the '87 wobble.
Tory maj nailed on. Con gain Bootle?
*I was 4 months old.
And what part of Theresa May's campaign so far has left you in any doubt that she's a bumbling fool surrounded by idiots, who will make repeated and unforced errors over the course of the next five years?
And what part of the last couple of years has suggested to you Corbyn will hand over the reigns of the Labour Party to anyone other than a hard left successor, and that the membership will back him?
And why is it so hard to imagine a financial crisis like 2008 could propel Corbyn or his anointed successor into power?
Wishful thinking?
It's the sort of nightmare that makes you wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.
Yes, he is/was.
The LDs have finally woken up today to education being potentially their strongest suit in this election, even though the chosen message (defending the universal, untargeted free school meals for little ones) is not exactly the strongest.
If the LDs bombarded every letterbox in their target seats with the New Funding Formula numbers from https://www.schoolcuts.org.uk - i.e. "your local school, Little Sodbury Primary, will lose 10% of its budget if Theresa May is re-elected" - I would have more hope for their prospects. So far they just haven't found a message that will cut through.