People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
Certainlyu the Northeasterners have their own view of London. From Wiki:
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker often buys a car, sells it back to the same person, for the same amount of money, then declares the transaction to have been "A nice little earner!" He wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [deleted], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
What a disgusting post
Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth
Who on earth do you think you are
Are you going to call out Yduffer for calling London a shit heap though? (you don't have to, of course, because we all know it isn't).
And what’s the average asset wealth of Tories in those seats? And even that doesn’t matter when the politics of this is: “they’re gonna steal your house.”
Yes, that's the political problem. If the Opposition is sufficiently unscrupulous (I'm not sure that Starmer is, but the LibDems are), that's going to be the message, and even people in richer areas will recoil. It's the same problem as a wealth tax on £1 million+ assets. Most people don't have that, but the campaign against will imply that they'll somehow be threatened.
The REAL problem, as Foxy points out, is that hotel costs are not covered. So even people with large houses in the south will tend to lose them anyway from their estates. Nobody I know thinks this is a serious problem, but nobody I know is against IHT - the universal sentiment in my circle is "kids can make their own way, what parents leave is just a possible bonus, and we certainly don't want to live in Mum's house when she goes". But polls show that lots of people think differently.
Yeah I don't really get it. I think my total inheritance from my grandparents was something like £5k, which disappeared into some renovation work we were doing. I don't expect to inherit anything from my parents, don't need the money now and certainly don't imagine I will need it when they die, which I am hoping won't be for another 10-20 years. I've been putting money into junior ISAs for our kids and I imagine may be providing free board and lodging when they're young adults at some point but don't expect to be providing them with any massive inheritance, and if there is any money left when we die I am guessing they will be in late middle age and hopefully making their own way in the world by then. People shouldn't be expecting bank of mum and dad to be supporting them. I also think this idea that it's OK for the government to take 50% of your labour income but terrible for them to take 50% of your (potentially unearned windfall) housing equity *to pay for your own care* a bit weird.
Likewise - to me it seems like the possible income I'd care least about being taxed: Per pound received it's the least valuable income to me, because I don't know when I'll get it, how much I'll get, or if I'll get it at all since my parents might outlive me, blow it on bad by-election bets or connect me to my pb comments and cut me out of the will.
I wonder if the opposition is mainly from the old folks rather than the potential recipients; I guess they feel like they've already paid a lot of tax on it, and taking out another chunk when they die feels unsporting. This doesn't apply to the heir, for whom its income that they only pay tax on once.
That is entirely consistent with the Tories' concern with what well off house-owning southern pensioners think (even if it is not entirely rational, as you, OLB, Foxy et al point out). This focus is very clear in HYUFD's postings, which are a very helpful guide to Conservative mentality on the issue inso far as it affects a major chunk of their vote
Yet how this can be done without alienating other components such as northern red waller voterts is an increasingly tricky matter.
"Last week, an announcement on social care further infuriated Tory MPs from less well-off areas, as it meant poorer pensioners paying the same as wealthier people. The idea that a government led by Johnson would be progressive had fallen victim again to lack of money and the Treasury’s wariness of further tax rises. Senior backbenchers such as Damian Green and former health secretary Jeremy Hunt criticised the plan as unprogressive. A Commons rebellion is brewing ahead of a vote on the issue early this week.
Many of the Tory party’s recent problems can be put down to poor judgments and poor presentation. But as Johnson struggles to keep a grip, it is also becoming clearer that a core problem is that of how to govern for a new, post-2019 coalition of Tory voters that is so wide and disparate, and includes Tory conquests behind the red wall."
Probably the only way to preserve inheritances in the parts of England outside the home counties would be to use more or less the current system, but instead of preserving the last £26 000, doing so for the last £100 000.
It does start to sound a lot like Mrs May's 2017 manifesto proposal...
Given even in the Red Wall the median house price is £160,000 they will still lose £60,000 even on the May plans.
It must also not be forgotten the Conservatives can win enough seats to stay in power without the Red Wall as they did in 2010, 2015 and 2017. Even if they do not win the comfortable majority they won in 2019 with the Red Wall.
However the Conservatives cannot win without the South and the seats they won in 2017. If Conservative voters go ReformUK over a dementia tax 2 (which even May had to abandon mid campaign in 2017 as it was so unpopular) then Starmer would become PM due to a split vote on the right
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.
The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
No, he needs a good adviser. Somebody intelligent who could understand the issues, lay out options, and guide decision making.
Cummings is a liar and fantasist of limited intellect (albeit unshakeably convinced of his own genius) whose every business venture has failed due to his ineptitude at administration and management and whose every decision has not merely proven to be wrong but was obviously wrong at the time.
‘Another Dominic’ is about the only way things could get worse. Remember, we all noticed a distinct improvement when he was finally fired.
That is very true. Originally the tory MP's welcomed the rise of Carrie as they were sick of Cummings.
Cummings is a curious figure. He has a lot of interesting ideas but seems to seriously over estimate his own abilities. I am doubtful that he can really learn from other people or react positively to feedback. Brexit is probably going to be his high water mark in terms of his political career.
Dominic Cummings is an excellent project manager. He is laser focused on the outcome - removing schools from local authority responsibility, Brexit, Johnson election win - and marshalling both people and policy to achieve the outcome. All those outcomes have turned out problematic, which is why he shouldn't be anywhere near real power, but he is certainly skilled in delivering them.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
I wouldn't use that sort of language - parts of London look quite nice to live in, and it has a lot of attractions worth visiting - but I wouldn't want to reside there. Too crowded, too busy, astronomically expensive, and much of it feels pretty unsafe (although it shares that in common with a great many cities and towns up and down the country.) I was certainly relieved when my better half got shot of his flat in London and moved out here, and he doesn't miss anything about the place.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
Certainlyu the Northeasterners have their own view of London. From Wiki:
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker often buys a car, sells it back to the same person, for the same amount of money, then declares the transaction to have been "A nice little earner!" He wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [deleted], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Cockney Wanker is one of Viz' s finest creations. Although these days people like him mostly live in Essex or Kent and say that London is a shit hole for reasons connected to [4] above.
Maintaining the current Covid restrictions through the summer would only delay a wave of hospitalisations and deaths rather than reduce them, the chief medical officer for England has warned.
Prof Chris Whitty told a Downing Street briefing that while scientific opinion was mixed on when to lift the last remaining restrictions in the government’s roadmap out of lockdown, he believed that doing so in the summer had some advantages over releasing in the autumn.
“At a certain point, you move to the situation where instead of actually averting hospitalisations and deaths, you move over to just delaying them. So you’re not actually changing the number of people who will go to hospital or die, you may change when they happen,” he said.
“There is quite a strong view by many people, including myself actually, that going in the summer has some advantages, all other things being equal, to opening up into the autumn when schools are going back and when we’re heading into the winter period when the NHS tends to be under greatest pressure for many other reasons,” he added.
And events may well be proving him right, though the picture is complex: Germany, the Netherlands, and a number of other European countries that kept NPIs are now suffering the predicted delayed Winter wave of death, but France, Italy and Spain appear to be holding up quite well. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to avoid going down the tubes too, or if that merely happens more slowly.
Or indeed if breakthrough and second infections become an issue in England this winter. There isn't a lot of signs of our long low wave being over soon.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
What a disgusting post
Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth
Who on earth do you think you are
Are you going to call out Yduffer for calling London a shit heap though? (you don't have to, of course, because we all know it isn't).
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
What a disgusting post
Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth
Who on earth do you think you are
Are you going to call out Yduffer for calling London a shit heap though? (you don't have to, of course, because we all know it isn't).
I do not use that language for anywhere to be fair and nor would I refer to any community in the terms used
I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.
Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?
The argument against that is the Tory client vote “paying more”.
Surely much of the tory client vote have sub 100k inheritances? The policy fails even if it was conceived as a bung to the tory client vote.
Well, the country is chock full of old people with non-mortgaged real property who all vote Conservative and the average house price is 200K. So as @HYUFD likes to repeat on a daily basis, its the Conservative Party’s job to protect that inheritance.
At the end of the day though the cost has to be paid somehow and in reality that just means even more tax on working people.
bollox, it is more chock full of people with hee haw. What planet do you live on where everyone is a pensioner with a 200K+ house and a huge bankroll. You need to get out more or take your head out of your arse. Does not even reach economics for the thickest of dummies level.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
I said on Wednesday - social care would become the big news story once Martin Lewis was let loose on it.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
What a disgusting post
Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth
Who on earth do you think you are
Are you going to call out Yduffer for calling London a shit heap though? (you don't have to, of course, because we all know it isn't).
Camden Town excepted, of course
Yeah I only like South London to be honest but I'm trying to be generous today.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
Maintaining the current Covid restrictions through the summer would only delay a wave of hospitalisations and deaths rather than reduce them, the chief medical officer for England has warned.
Prof Chris Whitty told a Downing Street briefing that while scientific opinion was mixed on when to lift the last remaining restrictions in the government’s roadmap out of lockdown, he believed that doing so in the summer had some advantages over releasing in the autumn.
“At a certain point, you move to the situation where instead of actually averting hospitalisations and deaths, you move over to just delaying them. So you’re not actually changing the number of people who will go to hospital or die, you may change when they happen,” he said.
“There is quite a strong view by many people, including myself actually, that going in the summer has some advantages, all other things being equal, to opening up into the autumn when schools are going back and when we’re heading into the winter period when the NHS tends to be under greatest pressure for many other reasons,” he added.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
I said on Wednesday - social care would become the big news story once Martin Lewis was let loose on it.
The 2019'ers, already disillusioned by being forced to vote for Paterson (which to their credit some of them refused to do) and having had HS2 neutered, are being asked to swallow another bitter pill. Bozo seems determined to alienate his majority.
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.
The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
Why blame Carrie? And if we are to blame Carrie, what are we blaming her for? HS2 maybe, on the grounds she likes the environment, even though the green lobby is generally pro-rail and against road and air; in unrelated news, the Transport Secretary has been criticised for lobbying for air transport. The NI rise came from next door. It was widely reported that the Owen Paterson debacle was due to an Old Etonian cabal.
The presumption a lot of this is driven by the wife does not seem based on much beyond a few anonymous moans(or from Cummings), and as it is such a classic trope that makes me wary.
The advisers were blamed. Then the wife. It's just a step on the journey of more people blaming him, which is what we've seen more of in the last few weeks.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
I read it as @murali_s taking the micky from the "London is Back!" boosters on PB, coincidentally often the same person who then rave about how lovely provincial England and Wales are...
I lived in London for 6 years, at medical school and working. London is a great place to live if you are a student (with someone paying the bills!), newly retired or very rich, but not a lot of fun for anyone else. This is why people move out when they have families.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
I wouldn't use that sort of language - parts of London look quite nice to live in, and it has a lot of attractions worth visiting - but I wouldn't want to reside there. Too crowded, too busy, astronomically expensive, and much of it feels pretty unsafe (although it shares that in common with a great many cities and towns up and down the country.) I was certainly relieved when my better half got shot of his flat in London and moved out here, and he doesn't miss anything about the place.
I get most of what you say but not the unsafe bit. I just don't feel unsafe here. I like visiting other parts of the country but I couldn't imagine living anywhere else.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
Vote Labour or else, you bigoted deplorables.
Murali is a bit harsh, though even as not a fan of London people do tend to bash it a bit much sometimes.
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes. Say it quietly, but he needs another Dominic.
The problem is that no-one who’s any good, will be interested in competing for the PM’s attention with the top man’s own wife.
Why blame Carrie? And if we are to blame Carrie, what are we blaming her for? HS2 maybe, on the grounds she likes the environment, even though the green lobby is generally pro-rail and against road and air; in unrelated news, the Transport Secretary has been criticised for lobbying for air transport. The NI rise came from next door. It was widely reported that the Owen Paterson debacle was due to an Old Etonian cabal.
The presumption a lot of this is driven by the wife does not seem based on much beyond a few anonymous moans(or from Cummings), and as it is such a classic trope that makes me wary.
The advisers were blamed. Then the wife. It's just a step on the journey of more people blaming him, which is what we've seen more of in the last few weeks.
Whether you prefer to blame Carrie, Cummings or backbenchers, Boris escapes accountability again. He is very good at avoiding responsibility for the trail of destruction he leaves in his wake.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
I note that FUDHY is talking to himself. How very symbolic for a once-mighty political movement rapidly disappearing up its own arse.
Perhaps the mods should give him a new avatar - one of Salmond and Sturgeon?
Yes, I did see the squirrel thank you. Wasn’t he magnificent in his late-autumn finery!
Going up that tree with its beautiful autumnal colours.
(Incidentally don't know what it's like round your way but it's been weirdly warm this month so far. Just one frost and most trees still have their leaves due to the lack of wind.)
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
I read it as @murali_s taking the micky from the "London is Back!" boosters on PB, coincidentally often the same person who then rave about how lovely provincial England and Wales are...
I lived in London for 6 years, at medical school and working. London is a great place to live if you are a student (with someone paying the bills!), newly retired or very rich, but not a lot of fun for anyone else. This is why people move out when they have families.
Bit late to the party, but the graph is very misleading, since it assumes an essentially unlimited extent of care spending.
In reality, only a small percentage of people will hit the cap on care costs, most of them vulnerable adults (and not pensioners. You can argue about the Gov't implementation of Dilnot, it's just the graph I don't like.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Nope, they were your core vote but Boris in 2019 realigned your party as the get Brexit done party.
Which means a lot of your old voters are now very much politically homeless and may well turn towards the Lib Dems come the next election.
I was thinking that the sleaze scandal could be the low point for the tories; I didn't expect things to get worse but they are proving me wrong. This is a mad policy as it completely skewers people with inheritences below £100k; so your average person on the street.
Surely it would be better to raise the total amount payable (say to £150k) but then taper the contribution to care costs based on the total value of the estate, so people would only contribute on average 50% towards it, and with the wealthy paying more. Whats the argument against that?
The vast majority of people will have care costs well below £100k.
This is effectively catastrophe insurance which is frequently provided at the government level.
Does catastrophe insurance offer more protection to the rich? Yes. But that’s only incidental. It’s designed to offer 100% protection regardless of wealth
I am not sure if this post has blinded me with science, or baffled me with bull**** . It's one or the other.
Bit late to the party, but the graph is very misleading, since it assumes an essentially unlimited extent of care spending.
In reality, only a small percentage of people will hit the cap on care costs, most of them vulnerable adults (and not pensioners. You can argue about the Gov't implementation of Dilnot, it's just the graph I don't like.
It's the theory (and people's fear) that is the problem here not the reality.
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
Of course - and he has made some good ones, such as this summer on Covid. But the PM needs strong advisors to filter through the vast activities of government, work through issues and identify the key judgements to be made; the breakdown of this may be the cause of all these problems.
It’s been said before, but the relative success of the UK in combatting the pandemic is likely to be ignored by a media eager to return to politics as usual.
The winter is not going to be full of stories of how the UK is the only country is Western Europe not facing severe restrictions, except for a few minor notes about how the journalists’ skiing holidays are affected.
Are you for real, among the very top countries in the world for deaths , 400 billion squirrelled away by a bunch of crooks and their grasping chums. You really are a nutjob.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South. The typical Conservative voter is a middle aged C1/C2 voter.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Nope, they were your core vote but Boris in 2019 realigned your party as the get Brexit done party.
Which means a lot of your old voters are now very much politically homeless and may well turn towards the Lib Dems come the next election.
They are still our core vote.
The latest Yougov has the Conservatives on 43% in the South with Labour only on 28%.
However in the North Labour are ahead 47% to 29%. The Tories also lead in the Midlands and Wales on 43% to 30% for Labour but still not by quite as much therefore as the Tory lead over Labour in the South
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
I'm just loving the irony of that post...
Edit – I had to spend a lot of time in London when I was doing my PhD because all my research was in the British Library, the National Archives or the London Metropolitan Archives. My favourite sight in London is a big blue sign that says 'Reading and the West M4.' I stand by my statement that it is a shitheap.
Certainlyu the Northeasterners have their own view of London. From Wiki:
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker often buys a car, sells it back to the same person, for the same amount of money, then declares the transaction to have been "A nice little earner!" He wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [deleted], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
Bit late to the party, but the graph is very misleading, since it assumes an essentially unlimited extent of care spending.
In reality, only a small percentage of people will hit the cap on care costs, most of them vulnerable adults (and not pensioners. You can argue about the Gov't implementation of Dilnot, it's just the graph I don't like.
It's the theory (and people's fear) that is the problem here not the reality.
I aw on twitter that the Minister can't explain the graph. If she can't explain it to the backbenchers, what hope for the country?
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Perhaps you might want to reread this post to understand how silly it is before you delete it.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Extraordinary to hear such blatant truths from the self defined Only Tory in the PB Village.
I have long said that levelling up was snake oil, but it is unusual to hear it so transparently from a Tory.
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
Of course - and he has made some good ones, such as this summer on Covid. But the PM needs strong advisors to filter through the vast activities of government, work through issues and identify the key judgements to be made; the breakdown of this may be the cause of all these problems.
It’s been said before, but the relative success of the UK in combatting the pandemic is likely to be ignored by a media eager to return to politics as usual.
The winter is not going to be full of stories of how the UK is the only country is Western Europe not facing severe restrictions, except for a few minor notes about how the journalists’ skiing holidays are affected.
Are you for real, among the very top countries in the world for deaths , 400 billion squirrelled away by a bunch of crooks and their grasping chums. You really are a nutjob.
Morning Malc, have another whisky with your breakfast. Cheers, it’s afternoon where I am!
The UK, well England anyway, is one of very few places prepared to accept that we have an endemic disease that, with everyone vaccinated, we can no longer control. Large parts of Western Europe disagree, and are trying to introduce more restrictions on liberty over the winter - hence the riots we are seeing on the news.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
The high house prices are not something we should be celebrating though, rather they are becoming a massive problem.
Bit late to the party, but the graph is very misleading, since it assumes an essentially unlimited extent of care spending.
In reality, only a small percentage of people will hit the cap on care costs, most of them vulnerable adults (and not pensioners. You can argue about the Gov't implementation of Dilnot, it's just the graph I don't like.
Yes, the other graphs on this thread do look rather different, for example:
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
The high house prices are not something we should be celebrating though, rather they are becoming a massive problem.
Not if you're one of the people sitting pretty in one of the overpriced properties.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
Maintaining the current Covid restrictions through the summer would only delay a wave of hospitalisations and deaths rather than reduce them, the chief medical officer for England has warned.
Prof Chris Whitty told a Downing Street briefing that while scientific opinion was mixed on when to lift the last remaining restrictions in the government’s roadmap out of lockdown, he believed that doing so in the summer had some advantages over releasing in the autumn.
“At a certain point, you move to the situation where instead of actually averting hospitalisations and deaths, you move over to just delaying them. So you’re not actually changing the number of people who will go to hospital or die, you may change when they happen,” he said.
“There is quite a strong view by many people, including myself actually, that going in the summer has some advantages, all other things being equal, to opening up into the autumn when schools are going back and when we’re heading into the winter period when the NHS tends to be under greatest pressure for many other reasons,” he added.
And events may well be proving him right, though the picture is complex: Germany, the Netherlands, and a number of other European countries that kept NPIs are now suffering the predicted delayed Winter wave of death, but France, Italy and Spain appear to be holding up quite well. It'll be interesting to see if they manage to avoid going down the tubes too, or if that merely happens more slowly.
Or indeed if breakthrough and second infections become an issue in England this winter. There isn't a lot of signs of our long low wave being over soon.
Not yet, although the boosters will certainly help. Longer term, Covid isn’t going away and the nation(s) of the U.K. need to have a conversation about the nhs. As people in a vox pop if they would pay more for the nhs and they usually say yes. Try to get elected on said increase, lose the election. It needs cross party change. Nhs capacity needs to be higher. Running a health service with little or no slack might look good on the budget but it’s madness when illness and disease are involved.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
The high house prices are not something we should be celebrating though, rather they are becoming a massive problem.
Not for home owners and their heirs they aren't and they are the Tory core vote
"Boris Johnson has been warned the migrant crisis could “destroy” the Conservative Party, as a Telegraph poll showed the overwhelming majority of Tory voters believe the Government's approach to Channel crossings is "too soft".
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
I don't think there is serious support for open borders.
The current asylum process is well illustrated by the history of the Liverpool bomber. Even those who fail the process rarely get deported, they just exist in a twilight world of poverty and desperation, often for years. This being the case despite a series of supposedly tough Tory Home Secrataries for over a decade.
"Boris Johnson has been warned the migrant crisis could “destroy” the Conservative Party, as a Telegraph poll showed the overwhelming majority of Tory voters believe the Government's approach to Channel crossings is "too soft".
And that's before we get an NHS winter crisis, irrespective of what covid does
Not getting a grip on our borders I agree is a far bigger threat to Boris in terms of his core vote than his social care proposals which most Tories will welcome
The big problem, IMHO, is the different treatment of different illnesses, and physical conditions. A patient suffering from incurable cancer will be cared for free. However Alzheimers is a different matter. They or their family will be expected to meet the full costs of care The situation is that the cost cap on care is completely unrelated and separate to Continuing Healthcare Funding. If an individual has primary heath needs, then the cost of their care in full will be met by the NHS. This is separate to any care cap. The question that then arises is; is someone's inability to look after themselves due to (eg) Alzheimers health related or simply age related? Is their situation one of 'primary health needs' or not, and many people haver fought Local and Health Authorities on the matter, and won. However, so far, each case has been fought individually, and is never treated as a benchmark for future cases. Bro-in-law fought a NorthWestern LA on the point, and won, but I have no doubt whatsoever that in the twenty or so years since, the same Authority has been fought several times.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
Though this governments proposals haven't exactly stopped the crossings, have they?
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
We need to process applications in France, approve them, and bring these vulnerable people,here safely.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
The problem there is that we are asking France to do the impossible, you can't police 100+ miles of coast to try and work out where the people are going to depart from today.
There are no easy (and in fact probably, no) answers here. The Times had a decent writeup on it yesterday, pick any option and the downsides are greater than the upsides.
What we do need to do is process people quicker and (sadly) make their life's so unpleasant that they prefer to go back home.
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
Good morning! I was about to raise an objection to your outrageous post, then I realised that you clearly have been to Scunny and Pools and Boro and seen for yourself just how awful they are.
London IS a shitheap though - not the cities bit in the middle, the surrounding crushed in miserable hell that is "Greater" London.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
We need to process applications in France, approve them, and bring these vulnerable people,here safely.
That labour spokesman is useless.
How do those people live in France while their applications are processed?
Used by so many as the representative of a distribution, for which it indeed has some utility.
And then, by so many, the distribution vanishes and only the representative number counts, its origin and derivation forgotten.
“The median voter for us is marginally better off,” sounds great. “Nearly half of our voters are worse off,” means exactly the same, but has a very different feeling.
Always beware of anyone using average and only average.
Ask yourself what shape is the distribution for which we’re only hearing that sole representative number. How wide or narrow is it? Where are the interquartile ranges? What is the absolute number of people above and below a given figure? Both in total, and in a category in which you are interested.
Hiding behind solely an “average” (and without even an indication of which average, out of mode, median, and mean), leaves us able to say that the average number of legs that voters possess is less than 2. True, but of limited utility and possibly misleading overall.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
Wow. You really do embody the true spirit of the Tories and their disdain for working class communities. You really do underestimate the potential to lose seats in your core group.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
The high house prices are not something we should be celebrating though, rather they are becoming a massive problem.
Not if you're one of the people sitting pretty in one of the overpriced properties.
Really not true. Even if you are one of them, it makes trading across or up less affordable, and hits your children, even if you are too selfish to care about anybody else
People calling London a "shitheap". Surely some mistake? London is a great World City - arguable the best city in the World. Places like Scunthorpe, Hartlepool, Middlesborough are the real shitheaps - miserable places with miserable uneducated bigotted trash who reside there?
What a disgusting post
Ordinary hard working people with families live in these areas and are the salt of the earth
Who on earth do you think you are
No no thats a typo - they have *salted* the earth.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
We need to process applications in France, approve them, and bring these vulnerable people,here safely.
That labour spokesman is useless.
What is the point in processing applications if we are going to approve them anyway?
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
We need to process applications in France, approve them, and bring these vulnerable people,here safely.
That labour spokesman is useless.
How do those people live in France while their applications are processed?
The french govt should house them in temporary accommodation
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
Wow. You really do embody the true spirit of the Tories and their disdain for working class communities. You really do underestimate the potential to lose seats in your core group.
Plenty of working class people are home owners, especially older ones, and if they live in the South plenty will live in houses worth over £200,000.
On the other hand plenty of students and young people rent. The former come under the Tory core vote, the latter don't
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
Wow. You really do embody the true spirit of the Tories and their disdain for working class communities. You really do underestimate the potential to lose seats in your core group.
Plenty of working class people are home owners, especially older ones, and if they live in the South plenty will live in houses worth over £200,000.
On the other hand plenty of students and young people rent. The former come under the Tory core vote, the latter don't
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
The problem there is that we are asking France to do the impossible, you can't police 100+ miles of coast to try and work out where the people are going to depart from today.
There are no easy (and in fact probably, no) answers here. The Times had a decent writeup on it yesterday, pick any option and the downsides are greater than the upsides.
What we do need to do is process people quicker and (sadly) make their life's so unpleasant that they prefer to go back home.
Or make their life so unpleasant they prefer to blow themselves up in a taxi in Liverpool.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
Though this governments proposals haven't exactly stopped the crossings, have they?
And that is the problem that seems intractable as nobody has a workable solution
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
"Nice to have" does explain Boris's utterly insane Railway and (quietly announced) Social Care policies - as Boris is running those policies to keep his Southern MPs happy.
Lots of talk on the migrant crisis this morning on the news. Labour should grab the initiative, be bold, and propose something close to open borders. There is a lot of political will for it in the progressive side.
Labour's shadow home secretary only solution is better negotiations with France, more foreign aid and Dubs amendment, but not one practical proposal that will stop the dangerous crossings
The problem there is that we are asking France to do the impossible, you can't police 100+ miles of coast to try and work out where the people are going to depart from today.
There are no easy (and in fact probably, no) answers here. The Times had a decent writeup on it yesterday, pick any option and the downsides are greater than the upsides.
What we do need to do is process people quicker and (sadly) make their life's so unpleasant that they prefer to go back home.
Or make their life so unpleasant they prefer to blow themselves up in a taxi in Liverpool.
As I said - there are no easy (and in fact, probably, no) answers here.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
HYUFD you misunderstood something I posted yesterday regarding this issue. I pointed out that the £86K limit is not real because people will have to top up cost when the deemed contribution by the local authority is less than the actual costs (as it will be a lot of the time) and also people will have to pay the hotel type costs (eg food) which will be significantly more than you and I going down to Tescos so will deplete the person's assets significantly.
You misunderstood my post yesterday by assuming I thought this should be covered also. I don't. I think when people can afford their care in a home they should pay for it themselves. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise the inheritance of the children.
So here are the issues for you:
a) Why should the taxpayer pay for one type of cost of the care home and not the other costs if you want to protect the inheritance?. The inheritance is going to be seriously depleted (the £86k limit will be meaningless) if the person lives to a ripe old age and if they don't (as sadly is often the case) the cost of the care home won't have been significant anyway. You stated the food cost shouldn't be covered. How do you reconcile that with your wish for inheritance of the family home if the house still needs to be sold
b) Why should I be subsidizing the inheritance of the children of a well off person. I am happy to subsidise those in need, but why am I subsidizing people who aren't.
c) I am relatively wealthy. £86K represents very little of my wealth so my children will inherit nearly 100% of my wealth under this scheme whereas a poor person gets nothing and an average person may get 50%. How is it fair that I gain at the cost of the less well off.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
The Red Wall voted for Kinnock in 1992, for Blair, for Brown, for Ed Miliband and for Corbyn in 2017 and once voted Tory in 2019 to enable Boris to get Brexit done.
The Red Wall did not suddenly become Tory and Conservative, they simply lent Boris a vote once to deliver Brexit. They are still largely left of centre economically, if keeping their votes means taxing our core vote more in the South and seats we held in 2019 with higher property values then it is not worth it.
As I said the plans are not that bad for the Red Wall anyway and still an improvement from current care costs
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
You are quite right, are his views typical of many southern Tories ? and labour, it it were sensible, should be taking hthis view and hammering it home in the red wall repeatedly. Especially during the election.
His path leads to a lab/snp/lib dem coalition which will probably see electoral reform and an Indy ballot.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Most Conservatives are not the wealthy rich in the South.
Most Conservatives are home owners and the largest proportion of those live in the high house price South
The high house prices are not something we should be celebrating though, rather they are becoming a massive problem.
Not if you're one of the people sitting pretty in one of the overpriced properties.
Really not true. Even if you are one of them, it makes trading across or up less affordable, and hits your children, even if you are too selfish to care about anybody else
It makes trading down more affordable, so we get back to those wanting to do so to help fund retirement - so the oldies again.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
Wow. You really do embody the true spirit of the Tories and their disdain for working class communities. You really do underestimate the potential to lose seats in your core group.
Plenty of working class people are home owners, especially older ones, and if they live in the South plenty will live in houses worth over £200,000.
On the other hand plenty of students and young people rent. The former come under the Tory core vote, the latter don't
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
"Nice to have" does explain Boris's utterly insane Railway and (quietly announced) Social Care policies - as Boris is running those policies to keep his Southern MPs happy.
Seems quite a lot of conservative red wall mps endorse the recent railway announcements
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
You are quite right, are his views typical of many southern Tories ? and labour, it it were sensible, should be taking hthis view and hammering it home in the red wall repeatedly. Especially during the election.
His path leads to a lab/snp/lib dem coalition which will probably see electoral reform and an Indy ballot.
Despite weeks of bad headlines and Europe lockdowns, the number of Brits who want the govt to protect the economy over limiting the spread of the virus is at its highest yet - a huge shift on a year ago.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
HYUFD you misunderstood something I posted yesterday regarding this issue. I pointed out that the £86K limit is not real because people will have to top up cost when the deemed contribution by the local authority is less than the actual costs (as it will be a lot of the time) and also people will have to pay the hotel type costs (eg food) which will be significantly more than you and I going down to Tescos so will deplete the person's assets significantly.
You misunderstood my post yesterday by assuming I thought this should be covered also. I don't. I think when people can afford their care in a home they should pay for it themselves. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise the inheritance of the children.
So here are the issues for you:
a) Why should the taxpayer pay for one type of cost of the care home and not the other costs if you want to protect the inheritance?. The inheritance is going to be seriously depleted (the £86k limit will be meaningless) if the person lives to a ripe old age and if they don't (as sadly is often the case) the cost of the care home won't have been significant anyway. You stated the food cost shouldn't be covered. How do you reconcile that with your wish for inheritance of the family home if the house still needs to be sold
b) Why should I be subsidizing the inheritance of the children of a well off person. I am happy to subsidise those in need, but why am I subsidizing people who aren't.
c) I am relatively wealthy. £86K represents very little of my wealth so my children will inherit nearly 100% of my wealth under this scheme whereas a poor person gets nothing and an average person may get 50%. How is it fair that I gain at the cost of the less well off.
Because all that matters is Tory votes every 5 years - screw anyone who didn't win the GB house lottery 1991-2021.
"Boris Johnson has been warned the migrant crisis could “destroy” the Conservative Party, as a Telegraph poll showed the overwhelming majority of Tory voters believe the Government's approach to Channel crossings is "too soft".
And that's before we get an NHS winter crisis, irrespective of what covid does
The trends didn't look good, even earlier in the year. The hospital bed state situation has been bad for months, hence the ambulances unable to unload. The whole system is log-jammed, not least by the inability to discharge to a package of social care.
Funding is one issue, but perhaps the biggest one is staffing of social care. An increasing part of the workforce is needed for this very important work, albeit work that doesn't contribute much to growing the national wealth.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
If anything would lead to southern seats going LD and Tory voters going RefUK it would be a rehash of May's abandoned dementia tax not the Boris plans
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
"Nice to have" does explain Boris's utterly insane Railway and (quietly announced) Social Care policies - as Boris is running those policies to keep his Southern MPs happy.
Seems quite a lot of conservative red wall mps endorse the recent railway announcements
Have you? I've seen some get very annoyed as they discovered the cancellation of HS2E didn't solve their planning blight issues (and won't because at some point HS2E needs to be built).
Sadly Network Rail are being asked to investigate improvements that won't actually improve anything for everyone involved in the report used were a grade A idiot with predetermined views and an inability to understand that different speeds on tracks reduces the total capacity of the line as gaps / headways need to be increased.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
You are quite right, are his views typical of many southern Tories ? and labour, it it were sensible, should be taking hthis view and hammering it home in the red wall repeatedly. Especially during the election.
His path leads to a lab/snp/lib dem coalition which will probably see electoral reform and an Indy ballot.
A coalition of chaos in other words
Yes, although it is arguable whether or not it would be any worse than the current ineptitude on display. The party of law and order cannot stop pensioners and trustafairians blocking roads or migrants rocking up in boats and it cannot even deport people once their claims are rejected. Shambles.
Feeling badly hungover this morning without the pleasures of imbibing even a single drop of the water of life last night, I am made slightly more cheery by reading @HYUFD this morning.
A pity that he is only a pretend Tory and doesn't interact with the real party - would love to hear their reaction to his sneering arrogance above. It really now is "we don't need their vote" with "their" being an ever-lengthening list that apparently includes all the voters who gave them an 80 seat majority. The core Tory vote is what gave Blair two landslides love, you can't rely on it.
Anyway, expect another u-turn on this social care proposal. Its indefensible, unworkable, and the red wall MPs are going to demolish it. At which point Little Lord Flaunteroy will be posting the direct opposite of today;s posts insisting nothing has changed.
Boris's downfall seems to be repeated bad judgements. There is a strong argument that the problem is the lack of good advisors at No.10, and the dominance of Carrie within it.
Yes, there is that argument. Is it not also possible that the Prime Minister, any Prime Minister, should be capable of making his own political judgements?
Of course - and he has made some good ones, such as this summer on Covid. But the PM needs strong advisors to filter through the vast activities of government, work through issues and identify the key judgements to be made; the breakdown of this may be the cause of all these problems.
It’s been said before, but the relative success of the UK in combatting the pandemic is likely to be ignored by a media eager to return to politics as usual.
The winter is not going to be full of stories of how the UK is the only country is Western Europe not facing severe restrictions, except for a few minor notes about how the journalists’ skiing holidays are affected.
Are you for real, among the very top countries in the world for deaths , 400 billion squirrelled away by a bunch of crooks and their grasping chums. You really are a nutjob.
Morning Malc, have another whisky with your breakfast. Cheers, it’s afternoon where I am!
The UK, well England anyway, is one of very few places prepared to accept that we have an endemic disease that, with everyone vaccinated, we can no longer control. Large parts of Western Europe disagree, and are trying to introduce more restrictions on liberty over the winter - hence the riots we are seeing on the news.
That does not hide the fact that you consider the UK to have been a success, over 140K dead people disagree and the amount of stolen public money makes it even worse. Also given almost 200 a day are still dying as well, does not encourage me to think it is a success or that we are out of the woods. We are still double the death rate of Austria per head of population and have 40K getting it every day. It may seem good to you as you build your sandcastles, not so nice if you were actually here sharing the success.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
Even seats the Tories held in 2019 (ie not the Red Wall but also containing large numbers of seats Blair won in 1997 and 2001) have a median house price of £270,000 as I have already posted.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
You are quite the most absurd conservative I have ever come across in my decades of involvement with the party
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
"Nice to have" does explain Boris's utterly insane Railway and (quietly announced) Social Care policies - as Boris is running those policies to keep his Southern MPs happy.
Seems quite a lot of conservative red wall mps endorse the recent railway announcements
Have you? I've seen some get very annoyed as they discovered the cancellation of HS2E didn't solve their planning blight issues (and won't because at some point HS2E needs to be built).
Richard Holden, probable one term MP, on Sunday politics going on about how great the govts new package is. So, at least, one is a fan.
Martin Lewis on Marr absolutely savaging this proposal, damning its inherent unfairness with a soft voice. It punishes the north and the poor far more than the wealthy rich in the south, he is saying.
The Tories are supposed to be the party of the wealthy rich in the South.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
HYUFD you misunderstood something I posted yesterday regarding this issue. I pointed out that the £86K limit is not real because people will have to top up cost when the deemed contribution by the local authority is less than the actual costs (as it will be a lot of the time) and also people will have to pay the hotel type costs (eg food) which will be significantly more than you and I going down to Tescos so will deplete the person's assets significantly.
You misunderstood my post yesterday by assuming I thought this should be covered also. I don't. I think when people can afford their care in a home they should pay for it themselves. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise the inheritance of the children.
So here are the issues for you:
a) Why should the taxpayer pay for one type of cost of the care home and not the other costs if you want to protect the inheritance?. The inheritance is going to be seriously depleted (the £86k limit will be meaningless) if the person lives to a ripe old age and if they don't (as sadly is often the case) the cost of the care home won't have been significant anyway. You stated the food cost shouldn't be covered. How do you reconcile that with your wish for inheritance of the family home if the house still needs to be sold
b) Why should I be subsidizing the inheritance of the children of a well off person. I am happy to subsidise those in need, but why am I subsidizing people who aren't.
c) I am relatively wealthy. £86K represents very little of my wealth so my children will inherit nearly 100% of my wealth under this scheme whereas a poor person gets nothing and an average person may get 50%. How is it fair that I gain at the cost of the less well off.
a) Most people don't need residential care even if they need at home care, so we are only talking a minority. However the costs of living for those who are permanent residents of care homes is not the same as the actual cost of care. Taxpayers don't pay for pensioners who downsize for example.
b) You are a LD not a Tory and one of the key points of being a Tory is preservation of wealth and assets.
c) A poor person has few if any assets anyway but already will get their care costs paid for. An average person will still get to keep 50% of their estate whereas now they only get to keep about 10%
Comments
'Cockney Wanker is a character created by Graham Dury and Simon Thorpe[1][2] in Viz based on a stereotyped male Cockney. Wanker speaks in rhyming slang (often slang invented by the writers) and spends his days drinking and selling stolen or unworkable goods to passers-by from an East End market stall. Another of Wanker's specialities is trading used cars. Playing upon the stereotype of the indigenous population of London being fantasists, Wanker often buys a car, sells it back to the same person, for the same amount of money, then declares the transaction to have been "A nice little earner!" He wears cheap gold jewellery or Argos bling and 'Laahndan' gangster dark glasses, and is often seen smoking a cigar.
He is a wife-beater[3] and lifelong racist[4] who complains about [deleted], yet respects Frank Bruno. He is established as a royalist, especially supportive of the Queen Mother, spouting received wisdom such as "Ninety Free she is. Ninety Free. Wahn the bladdy war for us she did!"'
The Tory core seats in the South however would lose far more given the median house price in seats the Tories held in 2019 is £270,000.
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/without-a-cap-on-social-care-cost-former-red-wall-seat-residents
It must also not be forgotten the Conservatives can win enough seats to stay in power without the Red Wall as they did in 2010, 2015 and 2017. Even if they do not win the comfortable majority they won in 2019 with the Red Wall.
However the Conservatives cannot win without the South and the seats they won in 2017. If Conservative voters go ReformUK over a dementia tax 2 (which even May had to abandon mid campaign in 2017 as it was so unpopular) then Starmer would become PM due to a split vote on the right
Just nasty
The advisers were blamed. Then the wife. It's just a step on the journey of more people blaming him, which is what we've seen more of in the last few weeks.
I lived in London for 6 years, at medical school and working. London is a great place to live if you are a student (with someone paying the bills!), newly retired or very rich, but not a lot of fun for anyone else. This is why people move out when they have families.
They are our core vote. The Red Wall lent us their votes in 2019 mainly to get Brexit done and beat Corbyn, if retaining their support means massive loss of property wealth from estates from our core vote in the South then what is the point? We may as well have a Labour government.
Not that I think these plans are that bad for the Red Wall anyway, even in the Red Wall most estates will move from about 90% of property value going on care costs to only about half
In reality, only a small percentage of people will hit the cap on care costs, most of them vulnerable adults (and not pensioners. You can argue about the Gov't implementation of Dilnot, it's just the graph I don't like.
Which means a lot of your old voters are now very much politically homeless and may well turn towards the Lib Dems come the next election.
It's one or the other.
The latest Yougov has the Conservatives on 43% in the South with Labour only on 28%.
However in the North Labour are ahead 47% to 29%. The Tories also lead in the Midlands and Wales on 43% to 30% for Labour but still not by quite as much therefore as the Tory lead over Labour in the South
https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/g8dunbfqqh/TheTimes_VI_211118_W.pdf
I have long said that levelling up was snake oil, but it is unusual to hear it so transparently from a Tory.
The UK, well England anyway, is one of very few places prepared to accept that we have an endemic disease that, with everyone vaccinated, we can no longer control. Large parts of Western Europe disagree, and are trying to introduce more restrictions on liberty over the winter - hence the riots we are seeing on the news.
Sobering thought
https://twitter.com/DrStevenProud/status/1461311335472451586?t=okfHG58kxvdALR6FltEGwA&s=19
You were down to your core in 97 and 2001. You cannot win on your core vote alone.
They will benefit from Boris' proposals a great deal and they are the seats we largely won from 2010-2017 and the key seats the Tories need to stay in government. The Red Wall is nice to have and gave us a big majority in 2019 to get Brexit done but it is not essential. After all the Red Wall voted for Brown, Ed Miliband and Corbyn in 2017
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2021/11/20/migrant-crisis-puts-tories-peril/
It really is all collapsing at once isn't it?
And that's before we get an NHS winter crisis, irrespective of what covid does
The current asylum process is well illustrated by the history of the Liverpool bomber. Even those who fail the process rarely get deported, they just exist in a twilight world of poverty and desperation, often for years. This being the case despite a series of supposedly tough Tory Home Secrataries for over a decade.
The situation is that the cost cap on care is completely unrelated and separate to Continuing Healthcare Funding. If an individual has primary heath needs, then the cost of their care in full will be met by the NHS. This is separate to any care cap.
The question that then arises is; is someone's inability to look after themselves due to (eg) Alzheimers health related or simply age related? Is their situation one of 'primary health needs' or not, and many people haver fought Local and Health Authorities on the matter, and won.
However, so far, each case has been fought individually, and is never treated as a benchmark for future cases. Bro-in-law fought a NorthWestern LA on the point, and won, but I have no doubt whatsoever that in the twenty or so years since, the same Authority has been fought several times.
That labour spokesman is useless.
There are no easy (and in fact probably, no) answers here. The Times had a decent writeup on it yesterday, pick any option and the downsides are greater than the upsides.
What we do need to do is process people quicker and (sadly) make their life's so unpleasant that they prefer to go back home.
London IS a shitheap though - not the cities bit in the middle, the surrounding crushed in miserable hell that is "Greater" London.
What a wonderful word.
Used by so many as the representative of a distribution, for which it indeed has some utility.
And then, by so many, the distribution vanishes and only the representative number counts, its origin and derivation forgotten.
“The median voter for us is marginally better off,” sounds great.
“Nearly half of our voters are worse off,” means exactly the same, but has a very different feeling.
Always beware of anyone using average and only average.
Ask yourself what shape is the distribution for which we’re only hearing that sole representative number. How wide or narrow is it? Where are the interquartile ranges? What is the absolute number of people above and below a given figure? Both in total, and in a category in which you are interested.
Hiding behind solely an “average” (and without even an indication of which average, out of mode, median, and mean), leaves us able to say that the average number of legs that voters possess is less than 2. True, but of limited utility and possibly misleading overall.
To dismiss the red wall seats 'as nice to have' is madness and disrespectful to all those in these areas who voted conservative for the first time
Your attitude would result in the end of the conservative party as a national party as it is eradicated in Scotland, lose it red wall seats and dozens of south seats to the lib dems
Indeed your views could be considered eccentric if it wasn't for the fact you represent the party and hope to be a conservative mp, God forbid
On the other hand plenty of students and young people rent. The former come under the Tory core vote, the latter don't
You misunderstood my post yesterday by assuming I thought this should be covered also. I don't. I think when people can afford their care in a home they should pay for it themselves. I don't see why the taxpayer should subsidise the inheritance of the children.
So here are the issues for you:
a) Why should the taxpayer pay for one type of cost of the care home and not the other costs if you want to protect the inheritance?. The inheritance is going to be seriously depleted (the £86k limit will be meaningless) if the person lives to a ripe old age and if they don't (as sadly is often the case) the cost of the care home won't have been significant anyway. You stated the food cost shouldn't be covered. How do you reconcile that with your wish for inheritance of the family home if the house still needs to be sold
b) Why should I be subsidizing the inheritance of the children of a well off person. I am happy to subsidise those in need, but why am I subsidizing people who aren't.
c) I am relatively wealthy. £86K represents very little of my wealth so my children will inherit nearly 100% of my wealth under this scheme whereas a poor person gets nothing and an average person may get 50%. How is it fair that I gain at the cost of the less well off.
The Red Wall did not suddenly become Tory and Conservative, they simply lent Boris a vote once to deliver Brexit. They are still largely left of centre economically, if keeping their votes means taxing our core vote more in the South and seats we held in 2019 with higher property values then it is not worth it.
As I said the plans are not that bad for the Red Wall anyway and still an improvement from current care costs
His path leads to a lab/snp/lib dem coalition which will probably see electoral reform and an Indy ballot.
Despite weeks of bad headlines and Europe lockdowns, the number of Brits who want the govt to protect the economy over limiting the spread of the virus is at its highest yet - a huge shift on a year ago.
https://thetimes.co.uk/article/will-booster-jabs-stop-britains-covid-winter-from-being-as-bleak-as-europes-pxwjlqg9k
https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1462348255619170304?s=20
Funding is one issue, but perhaps the biggest one is staffing of social care. An increasing part of the workforce is needed for this very important work, albeit work that doesn't contribute much to growing the national wealth.
Sadly Network Rail are being asked to investigate improvements that won't actually improve anything for everyone involved in the report used were a grade A idiot with predetermined views and an inability to understand that different speeds on tracks reduces the total capacity of the line as gaps / headways need to be increased.
A pity that he is only a pretend Tory and doesn't interact with the real party - would love to hear their reaction to his sneering arrogance above. It really now is "we don't need their vote" with "their" being an ever-lengthening list that apparently includes all the voters who gave them an 80 seat majority. The core Tory vote is what gave Blair two landslides love, you can't rely on it.
Anyway, expect another u-turn on this social care proposal. Its indefensible, unworkable, and the red wall MPs are going to demolish it. At which point Little Lord Flaunteroy will be posting the direct opposite of today;s posts insisting nothing has changed.
It may seem good to you as you build your sandcastles, not so nice if you were actually here sharing the success.
b) You are a LD not a Tory and one of the key points of being a Tory is preservation of wealth and assets.
c) A poor person has few if any assets anyway but already will get their care costs paid for. An average person will still get to keep 50% of their estate whereas now they only get to keep about 10%