politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On the third Thursday of May exactly a year ago Mrs May launch

rcs1000 said:

My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

Please watch and subscribe

Gadfly said:

rcs1000 said:

My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

Please watch and subscribe

Great arguments, but I don't recognise anywhere on that background map :-)

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

Please watch and subscribe

Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

Please watch and subscribe

Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?

More eyeballs for adverts?

JackW said:

The Tory Dementia Tax ??? .... I forgot all about it ....

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

DavidL said:

Correct call on FOBTs by the way. Hopefully it will see a massive reduction in the availability of this menace. It probably does mean many betting shops will close, particularly in poorer areas but that is a price well worth paying to avoid the social damage these things cause.

NickPalmer said:

Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?

I don't think so although I can see the argument. My mum died of cancer but other than the last 4-5 days when she was in a hospice she lived at home looking after herself. She had some help from Marie Curie personnel but it was minimal. In comparison her mum, who died of dementia, was in residential care for nearly 8 years before she died.

There is a debate to be had about what risks are to be shared (medical care costs) and which are not but large untaxed legacies increasing inequality into the next generation are completely the wrong priority and May was right to point this out. Unfortunately, as we have seen on so many other things she is no salesman.

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.

Yes, and there was an attempt agreed at Ministerial level to reach a cross-party consensus (Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb were involved IIRC, can't remember which Conservative). I vaguelky recall it got vetoed by the Conservative leadership at the time.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

OldKingCole said:

NickPalmer said:

Each party has now put forward reasonably plausible solutions to the social care issue which have been attacked as "death taxes" and got punished in the polls. But it's pretty generally accepted that there's a problem which something like this needs to address. A Royal Commission with all-party support does seem appropriate here.

There was a commission a few years ago wasn’t there? And it’s report got kicked into the long grass.

Yes, and there was an attempt agreed at Ministerial level to reach a cross-party consensus (Andy Burnham and Norman Lamb were involved IIRC, can't remember which Conservative). I vaguelky recall it got vetoed by the Conservative leadership at the time.

IIRC it involved something like their 2017 manifesto and was seen as a vote loser for them if they’d gone along with it.

DavidL said:

logical_song said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

Doesn't that argument apply as much to cancer care as dementia care?

I don't think so although I can see the argument. My mum died of cancer but other than the last 4-5 days when she was in a hospice she lived at home looking after herself. She had some help from Marie Curie personnel but it was minimal. In comparison her mum, who died of dementia, was in residential care for nearly 8 years before she died.

There is a debate to be had about what risks are to be shared (medical care costs) and which are not but large untaxed legacies increasing inequality into the next generation are completely the wrong priority and May was right to point this out. Unfortunately, as we have seen on so many other things she is no salesman.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Very proud of Matt Hancock and Tracey Crouch today.

Have both in my portfolio as successors to Mrs May.

DavidL said:

Casino_Royale said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

I think such reforms can be done but they need to be heavily trailed and tested first, and public support slowly built.

If you try and bounce them on the voters during an election campaign, they will smell a rat and vote accordingly.

Hard to argue with that (unless, like Mike, you have sold Tory seats on a spread betting site!)

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

logical_song said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

rcs1000 said:

My first trading diary on YouTube: Why I'm Bearish on US Natural Gas Prices

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9p2_FnN7Q8A&feature=youtu.be

Please watch and subscribe

Why subscribe? Many Youtube videos ask viewers to subscribe so it must matter, but why?

More eyeballs for adverts?

That would be viewers, not subscribers. Subscribers might get automatic notification of new uploads, perhaps.

Yes, that's it. I'm only subscribed to a few but I do get notified when there's a new video.

TheScreamingEagles said:

So a year ago Jim Messina and Sir Lynton Crosby thought the Tories on course for a majority of 290 seats.

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.

AlastairMeeks said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.

What envelopes?

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.

It's email that's killing them.

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.

No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement

HYUFD said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

DavidL said:

The policy looked for a large alternative source of funding for social care. I personally find the view that people should have their personal care paid out of general taxation so that they can leave their £1m house to their children untouched genuinely immoral and repulsive. The premise that someone else should pay is far too deeply ingrained in our culture.

But just maybe your GE manifesto was not the place to do it.

The dementia tax was not in itself the problem but Theresa May's and the Conservatives' failure to defend or explain the policy was. Then they ditched it, which made a nonsense of their "strong and stable" slogan, which was used some 18 times in the manifesto. Lynton Crosby directed the so-called campaign but somehow all the blame was heaped on Nick and Fiona.

Crosby's non-campaign campaign also failed to say anything at all about Brexit, which was ostensibly the reason for calling the election in the first place. The result is there is no settled policy to bind the cabinet or party together. New Labour always used to put the tricky stuff in the manifesto, safe in the knowledge no-one ever reads it, so that in the event of a tight vote the whips could remind backbenchers they were elected to send small boys up chimneys or whatever else was buried in the small print on page 94.

All the Tories have is that Brexit should be smooth and orderly (half a dozen times in the manifesto) and who could argue with that? It perfectly encapsulates Jacob Rees-Mogg's view, as well as Ken Clarke's.

No the dementia tax was the problem and a torpedo aimed at Tory and swing voters in the Home Counties and London who were horrified at the thought of losing much of the windfall Osborne had offered by raising the inheritance tax threshold to £1 million.

The manifesto was clear that the Tories would leave the EU, the single market and end free movement

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Topping, ha. No. Not leaving. Because when we voted to leave the EU that absolutely meant we were voting to have our trade dictated by the very organisation we'd voted not to be part of anymore.

It's indefensible. Even if you really love the EU and genuinely believe we're better off closer, it makes sense to be in the single market and out of the customs union, not the other way around.

It's wretched. I'll still vote Conservative as long as that far left lunatic is leader of Labour, but once he's gone, if we're in the customs union and there's no plan to change it, I'll be voting elsewhere/spoiling my ballot.

Cyclefree said:

HYUFD said:

The 'dementia tax' plan was one of the most toxic policies in political history.

Never again will a major political party even consider assessing a person's home to pay for personal at home dementia care costs after the damage it did to May's general election campaign

I’m not so sure. They’ll be called wealth taxes or something but houses will be taxed more to pay for stuff like this.

I am with @DavidL on this: while there needs to be collective provision, people with wealth - including valuable homes - should not expect others less well off than them to pay so that they can preserve their wealth. They should use their wealth first before expecting others to contribute.

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds

One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.

I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.

SquareRoot said:

HYUFD said:

Sean_F said:

DecrepitJohnL said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

Who do you think stuffs envelopes through the door each day? The letter fairies? Every voter uses Royal Mail but their costs are high because of the universal service to people who insist on living out in the country, so commercial rivals can and have cherry-picked the lucrative parcels trade.

It's email that's killing them.

Actually Royal Mail is now making a pretty healthy profit precisely because it still delivers the final mile for many parcel deliveries which are expanding through online orders even as email declines and Royal Mail also owns a successful and growing parcels business in continental Europe too

Its the junk mail Royal mail makes a lot of, its getting worse every year, (I mean the crap they sort themselves and hand you in a bundle every week.

AlastairMeeks said:

FF43 said:

AlastairMeeks said:

HYUFD said:

AlastairMeeks said:

Dura_Ace said:

NickPalmer said:

We've argued here about rail renationalisation (hello Josiah), but I wonder if this piece wouldn't have a reasonably broad consensus:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/16/the-guardian-view-on-renationalising-rail-give-it-a-chance

I wonder which is the next renationalisation into which JC will force the Tories. I predict Royal Mail.

Royal Mail could be shuttered tomorrow and a large part of the population wouldn’t notice. Like libraries, the Royal Mail is something people feel strongly about but rarely use.

People use Royal Mail for parcels and letters they still use and libraries are a vital tool for those who could not otherwise afford internet access etc, the jobless and elderly and for some young people the only peaceful place they can find yo do their homework as well as containing archives, local studies putting on talks and exhibitions and traditional book borrowing along now with dvds

One in three has used a library in the last year for which we have statistics. For everyone else, they’re ornamental.

I'm surprised as many as one in three use a library. It sounds like they might be a valuable resource for a large part of the population.

Used in the last year. That doesn’t mean frequent use. I can’t find chapter and verse but I recall that it’s one in eight who visited in the last month.