politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Life comes at you fast these days doesn’t it Mrs May?

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.

I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:

1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.

2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.

Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.

Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?

The Tories got the most seats, and the electorate decided they were just about good enough to carry on rather than having Corbyn's lot in.
The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.

We already have a dementia tax.

Jonathan said:

Mortimer said:

midwinter said:

Barnesian said:

midwinter said:

SouthamObserver said:

Casino_Royale said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Re points from the last thread:



https://fullfact.org/economy/labours-land-value-tax-will-you-have-sell-your-garden/

After all of that, Momentum, shortly before the GE posted on their Twitter a video of McDonnell and Mason clarifying some things about the LVT - mainly that it wouldn't actually apply to residential property - but only on business property.

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

They do. Also worth noting, though, that Labour will also need to find a way of taking votes from current Tory voters, while keeping its existing coalition together. Tacking even further left may not be ideal. The good news for Labour is that Scotland looks very promising after seven very bleak years. It's quite possible that at the next GE Labour could win 20+ seats there.

If 39 percent still support the Tories after the last few days they are going to take some shifting.
Corbyn puts a noticeable ceiling on the Labour vote.

The reverse is so. The Tories are going to lose the UKIP wing of 5-10% share. There is no sign of a ceiling on the Labour vote. What do you mean by noticeable?

As I said if 39 percent still support the Tories now after all thats happened they're probably not in it for the short haul.
Corbyn is simply not an option for a lot of voters particularly the elderly. He couldn't even beat May.

Yup. One of the few advantages of being recently disavowed of a dose of hubris is that you can then see it more clearly when it rears its head elsewhere. Labour are very much at risk
Of this at the moment; he lost as badly as Brown did with a giveaway manifesto
that was totally undeliverable.

Corbyn's campaign was good and the Brown comparison is unfair and misses the point.

But for all that, it's a dangerous moment for Corbyn. Cool heads are required. He is in danger of being intoxicated by the hype.

Oh absolutely he ran a tremendous campaign. It is what he does best. But the result with that manifesto will begin to look poor, IMHO.

Casino_Royale said:

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

A check must be kept on all the people in this videos post Election utterance re Corbo


https://twitter.com/aljwhite/status/873231939221823488

Casino_Royale said:

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

That's true for a lot of them, but there must be some like I described.

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

Yes, I'd agree with

What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.

Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.

Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?

It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.

Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.

Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?

I used to think that the Tories

They should start by scrapping tuition fees for those students studying in subjects we want to help the economy. STEM subjects and those with practical applications. We should never have gone down the route of using university as a means of keeping the young off the unemployment register by encouraging them to waste 3 or 4 years getting a worthless degree and then having to introduce student loans to pay for it.

What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers

I think that large numbers of scolarships, covering 50% or more of fees, for STEM subjects and Nursing etc would work fine, with a proviso to work 5 WTE years in the UK.

I would also extend it to those gettin X number of UCAS points for any other subject too, where that person places in the top 15%. It would mean that really bright people would get lower fees, the more marginal students and courses would be in status quo. Add in an increase in scholarships from those deprived communities and we could have a policy sellable to all.

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).

What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.

Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.

Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?

It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.

Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.

Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?

I used to think that the Tories' advantage amongst older voters was an advantage. Now I think it's a disadvantage. Younger people do after all vote. Meanwhile the difference in VI amongst the generations is so extreme that it's unlikely to fully unravel as people age. That means that as today's 65+ age group of Tory ultras dies off, they're unlikely to be replaced with a cohort of such entrenched voting patterns.

That's a fair point.

However, it doesn't explain the voters in the 30-45 age groups, who also went heavily for Corbyn, particularly amongst women, where I think public services and austerity played a far greater role.

School funding is a big factor - many women in that demographic will have school age kids, and can see the reality of frozen budgets/rising costs/teacher shortage. Some schools will be set for further cuts once the proposed 'fair funding formula' kicks in.

Couple that with worries about the NHS and it is no wonder the Tories took a kicking from this demographic.

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

Yes, I'd agree with

What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.

Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.

Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?

It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.

Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.

Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?

I used to think that the Tories

They should start by scrapping tuition fees for those students studying in subjects we want to help the economy. STEM subjects and those with practical applications. We should never have gone down the route of using university as a means of keeping the young off the unemployment register by encouraging them to waste 3 or 4 years getting a worthless degree and then having to introduce student loans to pay for it.

What we need is to show that the alternatives such as apprenticeships are just as valuable and valued and get the university entrants back down to 15-20% of the school-leavers

I think that large numbers of scolarships, covering 50% or more of fees, for STEM subjects and Nursing etc would work fine, with a proviso to work 5 WTE years in the UK.

I would also extend it to those gettin X number of UCAS points for any other subject too, where that person places in the top 15%. It would mean that really bright people would get lower fees, the more marginal students and courses would be in status quo. Add in an increase in scholarships from those deprived communities and we could have a policy sellable to all.

That all seems very reasonable. Perhaps we should start a party and push it.

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

"almost won" = up to five years as losers....

Probably less, and they expected a decade or longer in the wilderness.

MarkHopkins said:

We already have a dementia tax.

But it was a terrible mistake to remind people of that during a general election campaign.

atia2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.

The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.

The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.

Has Gauke been given orders to sort this mess out?

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

Yes, I'd agree with you there too. I'd also say that I think the Conservatives may have to make a dent in Labour's monopoly on my age group - as it appears we made the difference in places such as Canterbury. The Conservative Party are unlikely to win over a majority of young voters, but it's perfectly possible for them to win over a sizable share if they respond to concerns regarding tuition fees and housing (especially the latter).

What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.

Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.

Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?

It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.

Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.

Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?

I used to think that the

That's a fair point.

However, it doesn't explain the voters in the 30-45 age groups, who also went heavily for Corbyn, particularly amongst women, where I think public services and austerity played a far greater role.

School funding is a big factor - many women in that demographic will have school age kids, and can see the reality of frozen budgets/rising costs/teacher shortage. Some schools will be set for further cuts once the proposed 'fair funding formula' kicks in.

Couple that with worries about the NHS and it is no wonder the Tories took a kicking from this demographic.

Tories should revisit the school funding formula.

The NUT viral video with links to find how much your local schools would be cut was very widely shared by my FB friends, particularly the females.

May is not capable of so many U turns without a carcrash.

Dadge said:

If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.

Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.

But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.

To Mr Tyndall, I fucked up the quoting. A bursary makes more sense, to me anyway. My degree was pointless, having it paid for is just subsidising lazy people like me who wanted three more years of no work.

MarkHopkins said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

"almost won" = up to five years as losers....

I said something like this before, but I'll say it again:

The Failure of Corbynomics

Corbyn was handed a level-playing field by TMay, she undermined her own manifesto and ceded the field to his policies.

He was dressed up and given nice scripts to read out.

The terrorist attack nullified his past and allowed him to make it about Police cuts, blamed on TMay.

He had policies that were designed for mass appeal, and no-one really challenged the economics, as no-one thought he had a chance.

The smaller parties were squeezed and overall this benefited Corbyn.

Tory remainers decided to teach May a lesson.

He started out as the underdog, but ended up with all the momentum and it turned out to be a great chance for him.

Despite all this, Corbyn still lost the election.

Who "won" the election, then? I don't see any single party able to command the confidence of the House.

And, as for your level playing field, I'd like to see your idea of a tilted one!

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Total and unadulterated joy that Mrs May's miserable government failed to get a mandate for the kind of Brexit that would economically cripple this country for years to come and do substantial harm to millions of British people. I cannot tell you how happy I was when I saw that exit poll, how nervous I was that it was not true and then how delighted I was when it turned out to be accurate. I have always thought she is an utterly woeful PM, that her obsession with the right wing press is hugely damaging and that an increased majority would have been a disaster.

Beyond that, we now have a two party system in England and Wales - and over 12 million people have just voted Labour. I can either seek to play a very, very minor part in trying to influence the direction the party takes or I can stand on the side lines and do nothing. I am still thinking it through and a lot will depend on how Labour reacts to what has happened, but it seems to me that it is better to be involved than not to be.

MarkHopkins said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

"almost won" = up to five years as losers....

I said something like this before, but I'll say it again:

The Failure of Corbynomics

Corbyn was handed a level-playing field by TMay, she undermined her own manifesto and ceded the field to his policies.

He was dressed up and given nice scripts to read out.

The terrorist attack nullified his past and allowed him to make it about Police cuts, blamed on TMay.

He had policies that were designed for mass appeal, and no-one really challenged the economics, as no-one thought he had a chance.

The smaller parties were squeezed and overall this benefited Corbyn.

Tory remainers decided to teach May a lesson.

He started out as the underdog, but ended up with all the momentum and it turned out to be a great chance for him.

Despite all this, Corbyn still lost the election.

There's a touch of bravado in your post. In the end May was lucky. If the election had been next Thursday, Corbyn would've won. From a standing start it only took six weeks for a has-been old lefty to persuade an entire Western nation that "it's only money".

AlastairMeeks said:

The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.

If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?

Or your cancer treatment?

foxinsoxuk said:

AramintaMoonbeamQC said:

Casino_Royale said:

Wulfrun_Phil said:

Pulpstar said:

The_Apocalypse said:

Casino_Royale said:

FWIW, I agree with you. There aren't many "secret" Conservative non-voters.

The Conservatives have to take votes directly from Labour, probably focused on women and those in the 35-44 age bracket (with young children, or children approaching university age) in the first instance, and hold onto everything else.

What's interesting to me, is how Blue Labour - and idea which was seen by quite a few as one which could generate potential electoral success - turns out not to be that great in electoral terms after all.

Generation rent+ tuition fees. No wonder they're turning to Corbyn.

Why did the government possibly think increasing them to £9000 was ever a good idea ? Did they just make the calculation that young people would never actually vote ?

It's in excess of £10k now, the promise to index the £21k threshold has been broken, and interest rates on them are no longer limited to inflation.

Effectively, what it means is that today's younger people will pay a rate of income tax 9% in excess of that paid by those aged in their mid 40s for the same earnings for pretty well the rest of their life.

Wouldn't you feel pissed off with the party that gave you this?

I used to think that the

That's a fair point.

However, it doesn't explain the voters in the 30-45 age groups, who also went heavily for Corbyn, particularly amongst women, where I think public services and austerity played a far greater role.

School funding is a big factor - many women in that demographic will have school age kids, and can see the reality of frozen budgets/rising costs/teacher shortage. Some schools will be set for further cuts once the proposed 'fair funding formula' kicks in.

Couple that with worries about the NHS and it is no wonder the Tories took a kicking from this demographic.

Tories should revisit the school funding formula.

The NUT viral video with links to find how much your local schools would be cut was very widely shared by my FB friends, particularly the females.

May is not capable of so many U turns without a carcrash.

They were 'taking soundings' before the election, as their own backbenchers had told them it was a disaster waiting to happen.

She's going to need to put something out there, 93% of children are state school educated - that's an awful lot of unimpressed parents to woo back, in case of another election.

AlastairMeeks said:

The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.

If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?

"There is no such thing as public money. There is only taxpayers' money." - Maggie.

AlastairMeeks said:

The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.

If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?

Altogether now:

"We want it all, we want it now, we want them to pay for it"

glw said:

rottenborough said:

glw said:

MarkHopkins said:

We already have a dementia tax.

But it was a terrible mistake to remind people of that during a general election campaign.

That must be in the running for understatement of the decade award.

The Tories had good intentions overall with what they want to do with social care, but it was terrible politics. It's baffling to me why they did it, unless some people were thinking Corbyn's unelectable so they can stick something difficult in the manifesto.

Labour sleeper agents!

MarkHopkins said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

The Tories need to keep plugging this message day in day out. Labour's hidden dementia tax. If you have dementia you are already paying it.

This was very much a perception election. It was all about how people perceived was the right choice. Corbyn (somehow) managed to come across as the nice guy who would help you, and May came across as the witch who would take your house.

The Tories need to be decimating the whole of Corbynomics day-in day-out from now to the next election. They cannot let him get away with that again.

I'm inclined to agree but they spend more time attacking ie fruitcake/loonies or terrorist supporters than spelling out the positives. Read the pb tories, they genuinely can't understand why people don't vote conservative.

Durrrrh.

Interesting that Sir Patrick McLoughlin has kept his job as Tory Chairman.

He was invisible during the campaign.

foxinsoxuk said:

another_richard said:

Dadge said:

If truth be told, a lot of Tories are as fed up of "close down local hospitals", "abolish Berkshire/Cheshire", "sell our water companies to the French", "give Toby Young a billion to set up a school for his mates", "let the feckless beg" etc. as everybody else, perhaps even more so. Yet their party has got a reputation of asset-strippers. New Labour had a flavour of this too, but that's why Corbyn and co. have move the party left. And rather than keep the wealthy from supporting the party it's had the opposite effect, since based on their own experiences a lot of well-off people really don't believe the country is too poor to be decent.

Up until a decade ago free market capitalism was working for the average person as living standards rose.

But after a decade of wages stagnation and increasing unfairness its seen as Mandelson and Osborne arselicking foreign oligarchs, tax cuts for the rich and big business and the likes of Fred Goodwin and Philip Green walking away with fortunes while the workers lose their jobs.

The biggest problem in funding services anywhere in the world is the offshoring of profits by mega corporations. Not only do so many of these companies pay bugger all tax anywhere, and particularly where they make their profits, it also gives them a financial advantage over smaller startups, who do have to pay tax in their jurisdictions.

They usually pay tax somewhere, but at a very, very low rate. We have people like Juncker to thank for that.

The other side to the student debt problem is employers. If you want a job at a major employer, the first question will be "do you have a degree?" It determines what kind of job you get straight away. Therefore anyone who wants a decent job needs a degree, any degree.

Perhaps one part of the mix of solving these problems is to stop this prejudice. People are perfectly capable of learning through experience and apprenticeships etc. They should not be denied jobs just because they didn't get a degree.

A job should be awarded to the best person with the right skills and experience. They should not be denied an interview because of their race, gender, or the way they learnt their skills.

MarkHopkins said:

Despite all this, Corbyn still lost the election.

Naught but Tory Propaganda! Labour WON the election with 262 MPs!

Defeat is Victory!
War is PEACE!

TheScreamingEagles said:

Interesting that Sir Patrick McLoughlin has kept his job as Tory Chairman.

He was invisible during the campaign.

Who?

Attacking Corbynomics will be very tricky if the actual economy starts to slow down or go into reverse.

Chameleon said:

atia2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.

The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.

The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.

It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.

At last we're seeing rational discussion

atia2 said:

MarkHopkins said:

MarqueeMark said:

Casino_Royale said:

glw said:

SouthamObserver said:

Corbyn's only chance of getting in is if there is an early election. If not, he'll now be able to re-engineer the party machinery to ensure a far left candidate gets nominated for the leadership each time there's a contest. Then he'll stand down a hero.

I would love to hear what moderates in the Labour Party think of what has happened, and what plans they had for Thursday evening that were stood down. In private some of them must be terrified that Corbyn and his pals will now have free rein to do what he likes with the Labour Party.

Moderates? They are happy their team almost won.

Everything else is forgiven, and principles forgotten.

"almost won" = up to five years as losers....

I said something like this before, but I'll say it again:

The Failure of Corbynomics

Corbyn was handed a level-playing field by TMay, she undermined her own manifesto and ceded the field to his policies.

He was dressed up and given nice scripts to read out.

The terrorist attack nullified his past and allowed him to make it about Police cuts, blamed on TMay.

He had policies that were designed for mass appeal, and no-one really challenged the economics, as no-one thought he had a chance.

The smaller parties were squeezed and overall this benefited Corbyn.

Tory remainers decided to teach May a lesson.

He started out as the underdog, but ended up with all the momentum and it turned out to be a great chance for him.

Despite all this, Corbyn still lost the election.

Who "won" the election, then? I don't see any single party able to command the confidence of the House.

And, as for your level playing field, I'd like to see your idea of a tilted one!

I'm not sure actually. My guess is that had the election been next week May would have secured an overall majority.

If the election had been in week four I think Jezza could have been the biggest party. I'm fairly sure the final week especially saw a swingback to the Tories (mainly down to Lynton taking control of the campaign from Timothy and Hill)

If they'd had another week to firm things up some more I suspect they would probably have secured a single figure majority...

Chameleon said:

Quincel said:

MarkHopkins said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.

I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:

1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.

2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.

Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.

Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?

The Tories got the most seats, and the electorate decided they were just about good enough to carry on rather than having Corbyn's lot in.
The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.

We already have a dementia tax.

We already had tuition fees in 2015, and the concessions the LDs got for trebling them made the burden on most students no worse - and better for poor students. It didn't matter. The headline is the story, the detail rarely saves you.

Just out of interest, what concessions are these? Everyone has seen their fees triple, the maintenance grants were completely abolished, and very few will ever get out of paying 9% more on everything over £20k than everyone else.

I think the threshold was increased from £18k and the write-off date brought forward a bit. Bizarrely, the trebling of fees didn't actually save any government money I think, according to OBR estimations (or some authoritative estimations). I'm not sure if that was only true when the repayment threshold was index-linked.

(EDIT: Sorry, it was the IFS.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-27129366)

MarkHopkins said:

Pulpstar said:

blueblue said:

And if the Dementia tax is linked to May explicitly the next leader won't have that baggage to carry. Which is another reason to get rid asap.

I definitely want May to go before the next election, but replacing her immediately creates serious problems:

1. Another unelected PM with no mandate, needing another election to get one.

2. You only get a honeymoon bounce once, which means the new leader would need to call an election within his first 6 months at the very most.

Therefore, if we replace May now, that means another election later this year, in the middle of Brexit, with Corbyn and Labour still riding high on their current momentum.

Perhaps it's better to let May get Brexit done as her penance for her shiteness, act as a lightning rod / scapegoat for anything that goes wrong in the meantime, and have the new leader appointed after the initial deal is done to fight the election?

The Tories got the most seats, and the electorate decided they were just about good enough to carry on rather than having Corbyn's lot in.
The mandate for Brexit was given in 2016, so May needs to get on with that. What is very clear is that there is no mandate for the dementia tax.

We already have a dementia tax.

The National Lottery?

That business about losing six seats was poor too. Not positive thinking at all, and at the same time offering encouragement to the other team.

AlastairMeeks said:

The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.

If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?

I'll settle for the young and old having the same things paid for by other people. Triple lock for pensioners, triple fees for students. And I never believed the triple lock would last until I retire thus evening the score a bit - if we're still paying for that in 40 years we won't be paying for anything else.

Chameleon said:

The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.

The baby boomers went through the 70s and 80s with high inflation, high interest rates, high taxation, and high unemployment. Only about 10% of the boomers got the chance to go to university too.

Young people might think they have it tough but I'm not sure it is entirely true.

Despite everything this is the best time ever to be a young person.

Oh the 50s and 60s were pretty crap too, despite the nostalgia for those decades.

rottenborough said:

Chameleon said:

atia2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.

The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.

The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.

It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.

To allow a market in insurance there has to be a cap.

That was Dilnot's conclusion.

Or alternatively having a state-owned competitor offering insurance for slightly above 'fair' rates ((Cost of care/yr * average time needed in care*life expectancy-50)*1.1) so that firms shouldn't go above that, but can still stay below that and make a profit.

glw said:

Chameleon said:

The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.

The baby boomers went through the 70s and 80s with high inflation, high interest rates, high taxation, and high unemployment. Only about 10% of the boomers got the chance to go to university too.

Young people might think they have it tough but I'm not sure it is entirely true.

I doubt the young will ever be in the position of earning more, year on year, from the rising value of their property than they do from their regular income (with no tax whatsoever paid on the proceeds)?

Chameleon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

The striking similarity between the anger about student loans and the dementia tax is that both angry groups are firmly of the belief that someone else should pay for the services they're receiving, even when an adequate safety net is put in place.

If I get angry enough, will someone buy me an Aston Martin?

That's what happens when you have a system where money goes in, and money goes out without anyone really knowing what they get for their money. To keep the system running smoothly without too much anger people need to be satisfied, and feel like they are getting a fair deal. Currently from a student perspective, after you graduate you have a massive pile of debt and pay taxes at a higher rate than everyone else in the workforce, while pissing away a large proportion of your money on rent (which are being pushed ever higher by those that benefited from the explosion in house prices) and generally miserable wage growth. The system of collective pooling of risk only works when people feel like they're getting a broadly fair shake, I challenge anyone to argue that the young are getting that compared to the baby boomers.

I have said it in here many times - a system in which most people think they do not own a fair stake is a system that cannot be sustained. It is in the self-interests of the wealthy and of cash-rich corporations to do their bit to ensure that people feel they have a shot, that things are not completely stacked against them. Putting money that you can never hope to spend offshore instead of actively agreeing to its redistribution is ultimately an act of self harm - if not for you then for your kids or their kids. At some stage, people will rise up and do something about it and you will have no say and no control. Much better to work with governments now than to leave it to the time when Jeremy and John control the levers of power.

AlastairMeeks said:

Chameleon said:

atia2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.

The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.

The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.

It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.

Why should the public be forced to take out care insurance? Why can't they take their chances if they so wish, subject to having a safety net? The evidence suggests that in practice that's what the public want to do. Insurers have seen no appetite for care insurance even among the wealthy.

The public has looked at the problem in the election campaign and has very firmly formed the view that its preferred solution is not to need long term care. I can see where they're coming from, of course.

Entitlement culture

Pulpstar said:

There are some big wastes of cash in this country:

HS2, Trident, Hinkley point. Nuclear weapons make us a target in any future world war, reasonably convinced of that.

Trident annualised cost is about 0.15% of GDP, scrapping it wouldn't even produce a noticeable improvement in say the NHS.

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.

The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.

Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?

Has the PM actually signed on the dotted line?

Mr Meeks has won post of the day at least 3 times in the last half an hour.

Amazed to see Mr Shillingajob still with the same username as last week. Same old boring astroturfing, mind...

AlastairMeeks said:

Chameleon said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Chameleon said:

atia2 said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

That is easily dealt with. They just keep pointing out that there is already a dementia tax, it was introduced by Labour, you only get to keep £23K instead of £100K and you lose your house straight away instead of when you die.

Not if you have a spouse or dependent at home. Then the house isn't touched.

The current arrangements are insane. Tweaking them is, therefore, insane.

The care system needs radical overhaul. This would also be an opportunity to create significant savings in the NHS. There is untold waste at present due to the incoherence of our systems for delivering medical and "social" care.

It'd be nice to see a free market system come in, perhaps requiring everyone over the age of 50 to take out care insurance, that way the burden of paying for care won't fall on an ever decreasing proportion of the population that is of working age. Any state funded solution will surely crumble as our national demographics change.

Why should the public be forced to take out care insurance? Why can't they take their chances if they so wish, subject to having a safety net? The evidence suggests that in practice that's what the public want to do. Insurers have seen no appetite for care insurance even among the wealthy.

The public has looked at the problem in the election campaign and has very firmly formed the view that its preferred solution is not to need long term care. I can see where they're coming from, of course.

Well there has to be a very clear decision, either the ensures that care is needed, funded by insurance, or we allow the poor die when their assets run out, and decide that we are okay with that as a society. Which route we take is a moral judgement.

Oh don't be so silly. Even the dementia tax proposed covering the cost of care when someone had £100,000 or less.

So when a person is down to their last 100k, who is paying for their care then? Oh yes, it is society as a whole. I thought that you were against that?

Dadge said:

foxinsoxuk said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

What is the current estimated cost of HS2. I wonder how many years of dementia care or bursaries that could help support. Damn sure it would be a useful amount of money to use for transitional arrangements to move to better systems.

The HS2 problem is that it is not green, and does not interconnect. It is an airline competitor, when what we really need is improved capacity on intercity and commuter lines.

Who wants to go just from city centre to city centre, then change onto the overcrowded cattle trucks to get home, or to the meeting?

Has the PM actually signed on the dotted line?

Yes

Billions of £ of contracts are signed

Diggers are digging

Planners are planning

...

In fact Phase 2a is currently having vast sums spent on the design.