Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
In my limited experience of this area a further problem with transferring foreign prisoners is what happens to them when they are released. A lot of sex offenders, for example, are subject to extended sentences where they are very carefully monitored on release and restricted in what jobs they can apply for, have notification requirements and restrictions on internet usage. Some countries don't seem to have anything similar with the result that the sentence cannot be properly served in the country they might potentially be deported to. The result is that they are subject to supervision in this country.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
We can't rehabilitate people we don't want in our country otherwise we end up with the weird logic where robbery gets you sent back home but rape allows you to stay in the UK.
And while I don't particular want robbers to remain in the UK no-one is going to want rapists staying..
Foreign nationals are not for us to reform or rehabilitate. Any justification for their continued presence is removed by them comitting a severe crime. Their liberty to continue their criminal career in their country of origin isn't our problem either - it is entirely their choice whether they set the person free or continue their detention.
So, justice for British victims means nothing to you?
Justice is served by the criminals being deported, never to return. If I had been the victim of violent crime, I would far rather the perptrator be deported back to where they came from than serve a British sentence in a British gaol. I think there are few who would differ.
Let's consider a more detailed scenario. Someone comes over from Algeria and viciously assaults you. Would you rather, if these were the only choices...
a) They serve 20 years in a British gaol and are then deported to Algeria; or
b) They are immediately deported to Algeria, but serve no time or other punishment there.
I think most people would rather (a), but I've not seen polling on the matter.
You’d need to point out that (a) carries a cost of more than a million pounds in taxpayers’ money.
There’s also option (c), which is that Algeria agrees to take their prisoner back and they get to spend two decades in Algerian prison, five men to a room with a bucket in the corner, where it gets damn hot in summer and there’s no air conditioning.
I'm sure you could phrase a polling question a range of different ways and get a range of different responses. You could also point out that reciprocal agreements mean that we would still be spending taxpayers' money on British people who had offended abroad and were sent back to serve time in the UK. I'd need to see how the figures would work out before being particularly persuaded by that myself.
If option (c) -- deporting them to their country of origin with guarantees that they will do time -- exists, it seems sensible. However, it frequently does not exist. Some countries are not on good terms with us. Some countries have high levels of corruption. Some countries have very different ideas of what punishments are appropriate.
We do deport lots of foreign offenders before they have served their full sentence on these terms to countries where we have good agreements.
Get them on a plane, now. 100% of the time. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Notify Algeria of what they have done, and pass them to the authorities there. If the Algerians see fit to free them for a life of wine, women and song, that's not our problem. They can't have been enjoying life in Algeria that much, or they wouldn't have come to the UK.
In the very rare case where a judge feels that public outrage can only be satisfied by a guaranteed minimum custodial sentence, the Home Secretary could be asked to make arrangements with the country of origin to hire space within their justice system.
I think it very much is our problem if a tourist from country X comes to the UK, commits a terrible crime, and then returns to country X to face no punishment. That is not justice for the victim. I don't think your policy would prove popular with the public. The controversy over the return of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya demonstrates that.
A working prison system would be very popular with the public. We cannot afford to house the criminals of the world. For very severe crimes, a prison sentence served abroad would be far tougher than anything meted out by the British justice system.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
Not unless the Tories also promised to rejoin the EEA and ultimately the EU and reverse Brexit, in which case Tories may as well merge into the LDs with the rest joining Reform anyway
Good afternoon
Just catching up on the thread it seems all Kemi has to do is adopt Lib Dem policies and she is home and dry
Kemi is plotting her own course with increasing popularity and support within her own party
Time will tell but I do expect her to overtake Reform and be the party of the right going into GE29 with policies on the economy, youth and defence
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
What? What “transitory sample”? These are not words I have used.
Lucky hasn't worked out what happens to domestic prisoners at the end of their sentences, apparently.
If what Bondygoo is saying is that they are being deported, but only when they've served their full sentence (minus reductions) in the UK, that is the logic fail. The whole idea of deporting them in the context of this discussion is that we reduce the prison population and stop paying the equivalent of Eton fees to house them.
I never said we only deport them after they’ve served their full sentence. Please read what I’ve written. There are various schemes whereby some are deported partway through their sentence when we can be confident they are going to a country that will appropriately imprison them for the remainder of their sentence.
We could deport many foreign offenders sooner, but the downside of that is that they might get out of prison earlier. Do you think it’s acceptable that someone should get away with a lesser sentence because they are not a UK national? That really would be two-tier justice.
In my limited experience of this area a further problem with transferring foreign prisoners is what happens to them when they are released. A lot of sex offenders, for example, are subject to extended sentences where they are very carefully monitored on release and restricted in what jobs they can apply for, have notification requirements and restrictions on internet usage. Some countries don't seem to have anything similar with the result that the sentence cannot be properly served in the country they might potentially be deported to. The result is that they are subject to supervision in this country.
I am not entirely sure that most Judges get that these kinds of conditions, which are entirely appropriate for UK prisoners, might result in a continuing risk to the UK population on release.
We can't rehabilitate people we don't want in our country otherwise we end up with the weird logic where robbery gets you sent back home but rape allows you to stay in the UK.
And while I don't particular want robbers to remain in the UK no-one is going to want rapists staying..
Foreign nationals are not for us to reform or rehabilitate. Any justification for their continued presence is removed by them comitting a severe crime. Their liberty to continue their criminal career in their country of origin isn't our problem either - it is entirely their choice whether they set the person free or continue their detention.
So, justice for British victims means nothing to you?
Justice is served by the criminals being deported, never to return. If I had been the victim of violent crime, I would far rather the perptrator be deported back to where they came from than serve a British sentence in a British gaol. I think there are few who would differ.
Let's consider a more detailed scenario. Someone comes over from Algeria and viciously assaults you. Would you rather, if these were the only choices...
a) They serve 20 years in a British gaol and are then deported to Algeria; or
b) They are immediately deported to Algeria, but serve no time or other punishment there.
I think most people would rather (a), but I've not seen polling on the matter.
You’d need to point out that (a) carries a cost of more than a million pounds in taxpayers’ money.
There’s also option (c), which is that Algeria agrees to take their prisoner back and they get to spend two decades in Algerian prison, five men to a room with a bucket in the corner, where it gets damn hot in summer and there’s no air conditioning.
I'm sure you could phrase a polling question a range of different ways and get a range of different responses. You could also point out that reciprocal agreements mean that we would still be spending taxpayers' money on British people who had offended abroad and were sent back to serve time in the UK. I'd need to see how the figures would work out before being particularly persuaded by that myself.
If option (c) -- deporting them to their country of origin with guarantees that they will do time -- exists, it seems sensible. However, it frequently does not exist. Some countries are not on good terms with us. Some countries have high levels of corruption. Some countries have very different ideas of what punishments are appropriate.
We do deport lots of foreign offenders before they have served their full sentence on these terms to countries where we have good agreements.
Get them on a plane, now. 100% of the time. Do not pass go, do not collect £200. Notify Algeria of what they have done, and pass them to the authorities there. If the Algerians see fit to free them for a life of wine, women and song, that's not our problem. They can't have been enjoying life in Algeria that much, or they wouldn't have come to the UK.
In the very rare case where a judge feels that public outrage can only be satisfied by a guaranteed minimum custodial sentence, the Home Secretary could be asked to make arrangements with the country of origin to hire space within their justice system.
I think it very much is our problem if a tourist from country X comes to the UK, commits a terrible crime, and then returns to country X to face no punishment. That is not justice for the victim. I don't think your policy would prove popular with the public. The controversy over the return of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya demonstrates that.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
You don't want centrism (better described as North London progressivism) to save the Tories, you want the Tories to save centrism.
There is something to that, and with a dose of dying Eurocentrism, but both the Conservative Party and centrism dying on their arses in union in the face of Farage would be disappointing.
Progressive centrism has been our guiding principle for the last 3 to 4 decades. It has resulted in a stagnant economy, a metastising state delivering dysfunctional public services, vast public debt, a society divided into factions and identities, immigration at a level where harmonious assimilation is impossible, a filthy and dangerous public sphere, and a Britain that only 6% of adults would fight for were we to be invaded. Forgive me if I don't share your disappointment at its demise as a political force.
The Heathite agenda has been shown to have well and truly failed.
Managed decline doesn't work, because it is more decline than can be managed.
Going for growth is the only option. Per Capita economic growth,
Free the city, free the small businesses, take CT and CGT both down to 15%. Exempt businesses under 10 staff from the majority of the employment law passed since Blair.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
They are a new conservative party with a popular leader
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
Its down 82% from peak to trough, however it is at a comparable level to many years in the past and higher than it was in 2008 for instance.
Inflation coming down does not lower prices and in fact means they are still going up.
For anyone concerned with this, migration returning to what it was in the past when people were already concerned is not a huge triumph, let alone reverse the effects they were concerned about.
I think you have your figures wrong. The latest net immigration figures are lower than they were in 2008. You have to go back further than that.
The UK public were voting for New Labour and a looser immigration policy for many years. Mortimer was talking about what the people voted for. I don’t think the majority were voting for lower immigration before 2010.
Not sure what data you have but the data I looked at was 171,000 year to Dec 2025, the most recent data. 161,000 in 2008 is lower than that.
However if you want to discuss what people voted for then Boris gave no such pledge but Cameron and May both said "tens of thousands". Tens of thousands is the range 10,000 < x < 100,000
171,000 is not in that range. In fact it is 17x the lower bound of that range, more than 3.4x the middle of the range and 71% higher than the upper bound.
So your smug "people have been given what they asked for" does not match reality.
Mortimer said, "The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades." I pointed out that the public have been given lower immigration. If Mortimer had said, "The public have consistently voted for immigration in the tens of thousands," I would not have replied or replied differently. I was just responding to the words that were written.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
So you accept that it has not been lowered to what people voted for (which under Cameron and May at least was an explicit, defined interval) but you still insist it has been accomplished anyway and wonder why those who voted that way aren't satisfied?
I suspect voters care about what they mean, and not what you are trying to twist it into.
I was responding to Mortimer's comment. I was not responding to some hypothetical comment that was not made.
If some people want immigration to be even lower, then (as I said before) they can at least be pleased that we are moving rapidly in the direction they want, even if we're not there yet.
You were not just responding to Mortimer's comments, you have made multiple such "mission accomplished" style comments in this thread.
"There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered!"
"Those who want lower immigration have been given it."
"Lowering" it to a rate that is still almost double the upper bound proposed is hardly comprehensively delivering anything at all.
That's like saying the public should be grateful that inflation has fallen to 4% when it is still above target and prices are still going up and high.
Those comments were all in response to Mortimer's comment about the public voting for lower immigration. The public has been given much lower immigration.
If you go back five Prime Ministers, then, yes, May and Cameron before her made more specific promises on immigration. If you want to talk about those pledges, OK, let's humour you. It seems a long time ago to me, but I guess it's more recent than the other discussion about what the LibDems did in 2008!
Out of three general elections, between them, Cameron and May only achieved an overall majority once (2015, versus 2010 and 2017), so is it accurate to say the public consistently voted for their positions? The public were somewhat split on them and presumably their manifestos, it seems to me.
Leaving that aside, did Cameron and May deliver on their pledges? No, not remotely.
Has the Starmer and now Burnham government delivered on the pledges Cameron and May made? No. They're getting a lot closer than previous administrations, but, sure, they've not delivered net immigration in the tens of thousands.
No, Cameron and May did not deliver (which was I believe part of Mortimer's point, but nor yet has Starmer or anyone else.
The context for discussions of lower has long been "tens of thousands" and it is not remotely that yet.
They've not been given much lower migration, they have given marginally lower migration.
You could argue that it is closer now than it was under Cameron or May but instead you want to overegg the pudding by claiming it is comprehensively delivered.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
They need to be a centre right, pro Brexit party that is neither LD pro EU or as anti immigration as Reform and Restore
If they are a pro right, pro Brexit, not quite as racist as Reform and Restore they are the Conservative Party in name alone.
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
No they are the Conservative party, still distinct from Labour, the Greens, the LDs, Reform and Restore
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
We could use insurance to fund social care like Japan
Prisons are an expensive way of making bad people worse
No prisons would be an even more expensive way of making good people much worse.
I really worry about the ways things seem to be pointing. We can't deport violent foreign criminals; we haven't enough space to imprison all those who should be imprisoned; violent criminals are being let out too early; the push for medically-assisted suicide is being brought back to parliament. I really do worry that all these things will come together and we'll end up with the death penalty again. It isn't unthinkable because Rupert Lowe is already saying it. Proclaiming it, even.
We deport thousands of foreign criminals every year, and the latest figures were up 36%. Don't believe what you read in the papers about occasional exceptions.
I realise you've appointed yourself the chief rebutter of anti-PB morale, but calling 10,772 people, 12% of the prison population, 'occasional exceptions' is ludicrous even for you.
We have a system where foreign offenders are initially imprisoned in the UK, to ensure justice is done, before then being deported. The system is working as planned. Or do you think that foreign offenders shouldn’t do prison time?
If you're saying that the 12% of the prison population comprising foreign nationals is just a transitory sample of the actual total of those sentenced, what actual percentage of those given a custodial sentence are you saying are foreign nationals? 24%? 48%?
As was discussed on here earlier in the week, it should be relatively straightforward to arrange for most foreigners to be deported to their country of origin to serve the majority of their sentences.
The stick being tourist visas and aid payments. Start with the countries with most prisoners in the UK, and work down the list.
Its ok though - because the centristdadsofpb seem to think the current situation is absolutely fine.....
If it were that easy, don't you think one of the half dozen previous Tory PMs would have had a crack at it ? Or were they deliberately setting up a problem for the next Labour government ?
The public have consistently voted for lower immigration for several decades. Politicians have ignored them. Is there any wonder the faith in the system is so low?
Politicians had ignored them. (Specifically, the Conservative Party politicians who were in power.) Politicians now aren’t ignoring them. Immigration is massively lower. UK net immigration has fallen 82% compared to its peak.
There are few things that the public want that have been so comprehensively delivered! Imagine if we could get a 82% fall in NHS waiting lists, or in robbery rates, or in the welfare bill.
They wanted an 82% fall from the current levels, not the boriswave levels. They see through your 'peak'.
What baseline would you like? If we go back two decades, net immigration was about 550k p.a. It was stable at that level for several years and voters at the time weren’t voting much for parties promising lower figures. Net immigration is down 69% from that. Not quite as impressive as 82%, but still very impressive. A 69% change on most government indices would be fantastic.
Mortimer said the public have voted for lower immigration. They have undoubtedly been given lower immigration. OK, maybe they want even lower immigration, but we’re still going in the right direction for them. You can fiddle around with the baseline, but however you look at it, the number is going down.
If we go back two decades the figure was 265,000 not 550,000
I’m gutted to see the fires in France. At least two of the towns I stayed in this year, Le Porge and Parentis-en-Born, have been evacuated
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Ditto. On my cycle ride from Bordeaux to Biarritz a few years ago I crossed from the peninsula to Arcachon on the ferry. The ferry pier had some dramatic shots last night on the news. I also stayed in Biscarrosse which I believe has been evacuated. The extent of the pine forest here is huge. When cycling through it you felt like there was not another human being for miles and miles (there probably wasn't). It was stunning. What a shame.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
I’m gutted to see the fires in France. At least two of the towns I stayed in this year, Le Porge and Parentis-en-Born, have been evacuated
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Ditto. On my cycle ride from Bordeaux to Biarritz a few years ago I crossed from the peninsula to Arcachon on the ferry. The ferry pier had some dramatic shots last night on the news. I also stayed in Biscarrosse which I believe has been evacuated. The extent of the pine forest here is huge. When cycling through it you felt like there was not another human being for miles and miles (there probably wasn't). It was stunning. What a shame.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
Need to see what the numbers look like, but I’d at least give Burnham credit for trying what several PMs have kicked down the road for reasons of political unpopularity.
I’d probably prefer some sort of insurance system, but the current system is very much broken and causing huge problems for local councils.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
The best way is some form of insurance scheme
If Burnham keeps the present allowances then he may have a point but everyone paying 10% IHT will include those who do not own property
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
Another more than half empty stadium in the Hundred. No wonder I am constantly getting spammed with promo emails.
I think they sold the tix for £10 to get the crowds in? Or was that only the first couple of years?
The first couple of years it was something like that and loads of freebies. Since then the ECB were still subsidising the tickets. I asked the other day, now its PE money, have the tickets gone up in price? I got spammed with early bird discounts and they have sent 3-4 in the past week, but i am not interested so didnt read what the offer was.
Just dug one offer out the bin, was offering me £20 odd for adults, £5 for kids, if bought a few days before a game.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
The best way is some form of insurance scheme
If Burnham keeps the present allowances then he may have a point but everyone paying 10% IHT will include those who do not own property
That sounds like insurance to me. Does it matter in what form the inheritance is held?
Make it simple. No allowances, no options. Put accountants and tax lawyers out of business
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
There's a dynamic a bit like that "would you rather have £50k or a 50:50 chance of £1 million" poll going on here.
Very many old people don't need much social care support for very long. That leaves a bill that's significant but pretty manageable if you have a house among your assets.
A smallish number of people need lots of expensive care in their final years. Enough to absorb almost all they have and then all their local council has.
Would you rather definitely pay some, or possibly pay everything? Messieurs et Mesdames, faites vos jeux.
It boils down to the challenge facing any Prime Minister, but perhaps Burnham in particular. If you want to improve this bit of society (popular), society as a whole is somehow going to have to pay for it in taxes (unpopular). Similarly, if you want to reduce taxes (popular), some bits of society are, at best, going to have to be provided differently (unpopular).
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
As I understand it Burnham proposals do not exempt care home charges entirely
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
As I understand it Burnham proposals do not exempt care home charges entirely
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
As I understand it Burnham proposals do not exempt care home charges entirely
I currently pay for food, heating, laundry etc. Not sure why I should get a free ride if I go into a care home. Plus, my spare cash goes on beer and holidays and I obviously won't be drinking much or travelling. I suppose the question is, how much should people be expected to pay, and maybe will you be able to.top it up to get better "hotel services"
This is a once a week story, somebody helpfully leaking information to keep it going.
I think someone has leaked all the data but the Sunday Times knows how to manage the release of it, slowly, week by week in small enough chunks that you this weeks story is easy to understand and builds up a narrative.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
As I understand it Burnham proposals do not exempt care home charges entirely
The hotel fees (bed and board) have never been excluded from any attempt to solve social care..
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
As I understand it Burnham proposals do not exempt care home charges entirely
I currently pay for food, heating, laundry etc. Not sure why I should get a free ride if I go into a care home. Plus, my spare cash goes on beer and holidays and I obviously won't be drinking much or travelling. I suppose the question is, how much should people be expected to pay, and maybe will you be able to.top it up to get better "hotel services"
The present system is not sustainable but there are no easy answers
My sister had terminal cancer for 2 years and all her nursing home fees were paid by Wales NHS, but my former son in law's parents had dementia and paid £200,000 in fees
This is a once a week story, somebody helpfully leaking information to keep it going.
I think someone has leaked all the data but the Sunday Times knows how to manage the release of it, slowly, week by week in small enough chunks that you this weeks story is easy to understand and builds up a narrative.
This has gone to the BBC. I said before, bit like Big Ange story, somebody close has all the jigsaw pieces and has a favourite place to leak to, but did spread it around a bit. I imagine what do media types get all excitable, an exclusive leak / scoop, so spread it around a bit and it goes from Times has a story maybe we will report it, to we are also in on the action.
The Guardian has been extensively leaked to along side the Times.
"The far-Right plot that never was: Twelve were arrested after 'threat' against 15,000-strong Islamic festival. Days later, all terror charges were dropped. Now, Sue Reid explores what happened... and link to Ann Widdecombe's murder"
That is a group calling itself "British Security Project", flying drones filming an Islamic festival, a newish right-wing extremist group.
One of the 12 people arrested after the drone-flying exercise was sentenced to 6 months in prison, suspended for 2 years, for having weapons (stun gun whatever that is, extendable baton) in his van, and another baton at his home, after a guilty plea.
I have no problem whatsoever with this police action to protect law abiding citizens from this threat, regardless of my skepticism for the Muslim group running the festival (the Keswick Conference is probably a decent comparison).
I'd say the the Mail in this piece is attempting to minimise what happened: Hurrah for the Blackshirts.
A stun gun would be some kind of taser like device. Probably the kind that is directly pushed into the target, rather than firing darts on wires.
They are illegal in the UK.
If they are designed to look like something else, and most of them look like torches and have a light on them, then they become a disguised stun gun, possession of which carries a minimum sentence of 5 years because they are classed as a firearm. It is a ridiculously disproportionate sentence for something most of the accused have bought on holiday (where they were legal) without any understanding of the consequences. Don't be stupid enough to possess one under any circumstances.
Absolutely. When I consider that the police got bent out of shape about my relatively small two stage fission/fusion device.
I mean, what is 50kt when we are taking backyard physics?
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
The biggest winners from inheritance tax being scrapped and replaced with a 10% social care levy on all estates would be those whose parents have an estate of £1 million plus and still would have to pay 40% inheritance tax even with the Osborne exemption on the main family home up to £1 million. Which may not equate too well with Burnham's commitment to tackle inequality, especially if those whose parents have estates under £325k and don't meet the inheritance tax threshold would have to pay the 10% care levy.
So Burnham would have to handle it with care and ensure that the funds from the social care levy would pay for most care home fees for it to be viable electorally
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
The best way is some form of insurance scheme
If Burnham keeps the present allowances then he may have a point but everyone paying 10% IHT will include those who do not own property
I wonder if Burnham will have a caveat; namely that the proposal to be put to and go through parliament will only happen if there is bipartisan agreement following negotiation; the basis being that this is a long term generational plan and can't work if abolished or tinkered with. He can then blame the others for its non-implementation. This principle could be extendable to stuff like defence expenditure, and even a common agreement never to promise in elections not to raise taxes.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
This is a once a week story, somebody helpfully leaking information to keep it going.
I think someone has leaked all the data but the Sunday Times knows how to manage the release of it, slowly, week by week in small enough chunks that you this weeks story is easy to understand and builds up a narrative.
This has gone to the BBC. I said before, bit like Big Ange story, somebody close has all the jigsaw pieces and has a favourite place to leak to, but did spread it around a bit. I imagine what do media types get all excitable, an exclusive leak / scoop, so spread it around a bit and it goes from Times has a story maybe we will report it, to we are also in on the action.
The Guardian has been extensively leaked to along side the Times.
Not a single mention in the BBC report of the fact that there is an interesting by-election coming up in which Reform are the leading player. The absolute media silence continues. except that the Clacton Gazette yesterday had a report on the betting market (everyone is backing Binface), ending with a list of 34 candidates.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
Well on the latest polls last week there would be a hung parliament in which Farage would have zero chance of becoming PM without Kemi's support. So the Tories may not win outright again until a post Farage era but they could still have some power in a post election deal with Reform
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
I expect the children of the elderly in care might well be.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
The best way is some form of insurance scheme
If Burnham keeps the present allowances then he may have a point but everyone paying 10% IHT will include those who do not own property
I wonder if Burnham will have a caveat; namely that the proposal to be put to and go through parliament will only happen if there is bipartisan agreement following negotiation; the basis being that this is a long term generational plan and can't work if abolished or tinkered with. He can then blame the others for its non-implementation. This principle could be extendable to stuff like defence expenditure, and even a common agreement never to promise in elections not to raise taxes.
There's no way such a scheme could work without some sort of consensus. Not clear how far that would have to extend though.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
The biggest winners from inheritance tax being scrapped and replaced with a 10% social care levy on all estates would be those whose parents have an estate of £1 million plus and still would have to pay 40% inheritance tax even with the Osborne exemption on the main family home up to £1 million. Which may not equate too well with Burnham's commitment to tackle inequality, especially if those whose parents have estates under £325k and don't meet the inheritance tax threshold would have to pay the 10% care levy.
So Burnham would have to handle it with care and ensure that the funds from the social care levy would pay for most care home fees for it to be viable electorally
I need to see some spreadsheets to understand how that would work.
I presume we are starting with needing to raise the current iHT revenue PLUS up to £18.5bn per annum. iHT raised ~£8bn per annum but it is increasing.
And surely it will require some reforms to lifetime gifts (especially for example "unneeded" income being giftable with aiui no tax - though this is not my specialism).
This scheme is, effectively, a form of collective social insurance, afaics.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
Why didn’t she just donate directly to Reform the second time . Why the need for it to go through Tice’s company ? And why did he only pass on half the money to Reform ? Just imagine what these lying grifters could get up to if the country lost sense of its mind and put them into power .
Not everyone ends up needing residential or dementia care - indeed, many live at home, cared for by members of the family. Obviously, there are some who will die before care becomes an issue.
The other side of social care (and which isn't talked about) is the care of children. There are children with physical and mental disabilities requiring constant care and whereas, to be blunt, many of them would have died 30 or 40 years back, now they survive into adulthood and beyond the point when they can be cared for by parents or guardians.
This means either domicilary care or specialist residential care in a dedicated facility which may involve transport.
That is also all within the local authority purview and the children don't usually have assets which can be drawn on (or a charge put against) to cover costs.
There's also the question of those who provide care within the family - the current Carers' Allowance has its critics and we have to accept the enormous work done by people to support both older and younger relatives.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
Why didn’t she just donate directly to Reform the second time . Why the need for it to go through Tice’s company ? And why did he only pass on half the money to Reform ? Just imagine what these lying grifters could get up to if the country lost sense of its mind and put them into power .
I want to know where the money was spent.
Why would somebody convicted of Wire Fraud want to hide the source of the donations?
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
Not everyone ends up needing residential or dementia care - indeed, many live at home, cared for by members of the family. Obviously, there are some who will die before care becomes an issue.
The other side of social care (and which isn't talked about) is the care of children. There are children with physical and mental disabilities requiring constant care and whereas, to be blunt, many of them would have died 30 or 40 years back, now they survive into adulthood and beyond the point when they can be cared for by parents or guardians.
This means either domicilary care or specialist residential care in a dedicated facility which may involve transport.
That is also all within the local authority purview and the children don't usually have assets which can be drawn on (or a charge put against) to cover costs.
There's also the question of those who provide care within the family - the current Carers' Allowance has its critics and we have to accept the enormous work done by people to support both older and younger relatives.
Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
I don't disagree, in principle, but the Lisbon treaty was already ratified by 2010. How would that have worked ?
When Brown was PM, their was a vote on parliament: the government position was that Lisbon should br ratified, the Tory amendment was, I think, that there should be a referendum. There were enough Labour Eurosceptics that Lib Dems going with their stated policy position of 'there should be a referendum' would have resulted in a referendum. Knowing this, Ed Davey led a contrived walkout of Lib Dem MPs, nominally in protest that actually there should be a referendum on British EU membership per se (yes, really). It didn't need the coalition to be in power - it was one of the rare occasions where oppositiom could have forced a position.
Davey wasn't LibDem Leader then; he was quite a way away from it as I recall (Kennedy, Clegg, Farron, Swinson wee in front of him IIRC. ) Would he really have had that amount of power back then?
Yes, it was his brief and he led the walkout. I'm surprised this isn't better recalled.
A quick exchange with Chatgpt on the subject:
Hi Chatgpt - around the time of the Lisbon treaty, when it was being debated in the UK parliament, I seem to remember Ed Davey leading a walkout of Lib Dem MPs. Is there a clip of this anywhere online?
Yes — I think you're remembering the incident on 26 February 2008, during the Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty Bill.
What happened was:
The Liberal Democrats had tabled an amendment calling for a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU, rather than just on the Lisbon Treaty itself.
The Speaker decided not to select that amendment for debate.
Ed Davey, then the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, repeatedly challenged the ruling on points of order, calling it "an outrage".
Deputy Speaker Sir Michael Lord eventually named and ejected Davey from the Chamber.
Nick Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dem MPs then walked out in protest.
As for video: there almost certainly was a live BBC Parliament feed, but it's surprisingly difficult to find online today.
The best leads are:
The official Hansard transcript of the exchange, which confirms the sequence of events and Davey's expulsion.
Contemporary news reports from The Guardian and Politics.co.uk, both of which describe the walkout.
A Lib Dem Voice post from the day reporting that Davey had been thrown out and that the parliamentary party had walked out.
Is there actually a clip? I couldn't find an easily accessible YouTube or Parliament-hosted video of the incident itself.
If it still exists publicly, it's most likely to be:
in the BBC Parliament archive (though much of the 2008 output isn't indexed online),
in a news package from BBC News or Sky News from 26 February 2008,
or in an archived TV recording uploaded years ago under a less obvious title.
The search results today don't surface a working video of the actual ejection or walkout.
If you're interested, I can also help dig into TV archive sources (including the BBC Genome and Internet Archive) to see whether a surviving recording of that specific Commons exchange is available somewhere obscure.
Here's your clip of the Deputy Speaker chucking out Ed Davey:
Edit the time parameter to see the before and after (scrubbing is difficult).
Surprisingly quick to find, though not by his name (maybe due to "Rt Hon" being in the menu, and he wasn't then), using a search by date then looking for the piece of the debate)
Off topic, I am absolutely loving the MAGA lot/anti-woke mob thinking The Odyssey was an entirely true story.
You can't move in the Mediterranean for sirens and one-eyed giants.
Troy was a real place and extended wars took place there. Then there is a mixture of metaphor, hyperbole, and the fact Homers work was based upon long orally told tales of the wars that of course suffer the game of telephone and story tellers own.similar fictionalisation.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The willingness of Wets and Dries to cohabit, however grumpily, gave the Conservatives a hefty head start throughout the 20th century. Since then, rather less so.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
The Nigel Farage debanking scandal looks different now
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
Why didn’t she just donate directly to Reform the second time . Why the need for it to go through Tice’s company ? And why did he only pass on half the money to Reform ? Just imagine what these lying grifters could get up to if the country lost sense of its mind and put them into power .
It does rather look like The Times has chapter and verse on everything that went on, and is waiting to see what Farage/Reform say that they they can then debunk. Henceesentially radio silence from Farage/Reform.
I suspect Faeage is crapping bricks. This is only going one way.
These Houthi attacks on Saudi Arabia seem to be fairly serious. They seem to have received ballistic missiles from Iran and support in targeting them. If hydrocarbon shipping through the Red Sea is impeded as well as the Strait of Hormuz then things become a little bit more difficult and expensive. And it increases the potential for a wider regional war.
My friends take their kids to the Hundred and they seem to enjoy it. So i guess if that is the aim they are going something right, but when i have its feels all very forced and taken the most annoying parts of going to the baseball in the US, making a lot of fake you must be having fun / excited at all times.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The willingness of Wets and Dries to cohabit, however grumpily, gave the Conservatives a hefty head start throughout the 20th century. Since then, rather less so.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
They need to find a major issue around which they can unite. As the Canadian example suggests, that might not be easy (this is some of the most remarkable party political polling I've ever seen): https://x.com/Lux_Stella_/status/2080789559441248416
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The willingness of Wets and Dries to cohabit, however grumpily, gave the Conservatives a hefty head start throughout the 20th century. Since then, rather less so.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
I think people are far more able to cohabit that is sometimes given credit for.
Matthew Parris, Ken Clarke and John Redwood rarely agreed with each other on everything, but they had (and have) no issue being in the same party, and, for example, all backed Rwanda.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The willingness of Wets and Dries to cohabit, however grumpily, gave the Conservatives a hefty head start throughout the 20th century. Since then, rather less so.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
They need to find a major issue around which they can unite. As the Canadian example suggests, that might not be easy (this is some of the most remarkable party political polling I've ever seen): https://x.com/Lux_Stella_/status/2080789559441248416
It's remarkable.
The Canadian Conservatives won't come near power until they fix that.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
Well on the latest polls last week there would be a hung parliament in which Farage would have zero chance of becoming PM without Kemi's support. So the Tories may not win outright again until a post Farage era but they could still have some power in a post election deal with Reform
Which confirms exactly what I said.
For the foreseeable future, the Tories can only regain any sort of power or influence by embracing the parties to the Right of them but in doing so they sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Off topic, I am absolutely loving the MAGA lot/anti-woke mob thinking The Odyssey was an entirely true story.
You can't move in the Mediterranean for sirens and one-eyed giants.
Troy was a real place and extended wars took place there. Then there is a mixture of metaphor, hyperbole, and the fact Homers work was based upon long orally told tales of the wars that of course suffer the game of telephone and story tellers own.similar fictionalisation.
The deliberate anachronism in the work (not entirely dissimilar to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, for example) adds to the mix.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
Yes, you don't pay inheritance tax, your children do. Actually I don't have children and don't really give a flying fuck what happens to my money after I die.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
The biggest winners from inheritance tax being scrapped and replaced with a 10% social care levy on all estates would be those whose parents have an estate of £1 million plus and still would have to pay 40% inheritance tax even with the Osborne exemption on the main family home up to £1 million. Which may not equate too well with Burnham's commitment to tackle inequality, especially if those whose parents have estates under £325k and don't meet the inheritance tax threshold would have to pay the 10% care levy.
So Burnham would have to handle it with care and ensure that the funds from the social care levy would pay for most care home fees for it to be viable electorally
I need to see some spreadsheets to understand how that would work.
I presume we are starting with needing to raise the current iHT revenue PLUS up to £18.5bn per annum. iHT raised ~£8bn per annum but it is increasing.
And surely it will require some reforms to lifetime gifts (especially for example "unneeded" income being giftable with aiui no tax - though this is not my specialism).
This scheme is, effectively, a form of collective social insurance, afaics.
One way would be to tax all gifts as income, inheritance or otherwise.
I am not hugely optimistic. I fear he is going to be facile and weak, reluctant to take hard decisions (eg prisoner release from overcrowded jails) and jumping from one band waggon to the next. But I very much hope that I am wrong and that we get at least some of the leadership we need.
The reluctance to take hard decisions - and to be seen to be taking them - seems universal in politics. It will be interesting to see if Burnham decides to to take the risk of abandoning that 'avoidance' model. It's possible the voting public have had enough of the avoidance route.
One critical test is coming up. Burnham has promised a 10 year plan 'later this year'. If Burnham is Starmer we will get meaningless waffle in 2028 which will be instantly reversed. So we will know if it doesn't happen in 2026.
If it does happen, we will have a decent idea of how he approaches hard decisions. Take social care: Starmer almost immediately kicked it into the very long grass (review and action by 2034 IIRC). Burnham has made it a central policy and action plank. The last time someone did that was T May in 2017 and it nearly won Corbyn the election.
I am sceptical of Burnham and Manchesterism. It seems to me from afar to be a couple of things nicked from London and a couple of hasty retreats on affordable housing and clean air zones when the going got even a little choppy. London, for me, has the better Mayor.
But on reflection, maybe Burnham really is the messiah, and that rather than caving in the face of opposition, he pragmatically retreated in order to get shovels in the ground. Maybe it is better to get a compromise built rather than fight on and risk getting none of his pure vision enacted.
That said, funnelling George Osborne's money to a single property developer still does not look very hard and to a cynic, looks suspicious even if it isn't. Stuffing the Cabinet with ministers from his own regional powerbase, as well as basing his northern outpost there also leaves a sour taste. Likewise sacking any ministers who did not try to oust the discredited Starmer.
Pragmatist or weathervane? Let's hope the former.
Thanks. Two points. No-one has indicated what sort of cabinet Burnham could have constructed which would have been immune from criticism, ideally balanced, and made all the aspirants to top positions happy. That's just politics. Move on.
As to the northern emphasis in appointments, this comes to mind. Until last week I never noticed anyone commenting on the geographical composition of the top government posts. I suspect that Londoncentricity is so taken for granted that any derogation is astonishing.
There's another point about the north (and the midlands). And it's called Reform. In much of England the Reform threat is to what were generally safe Tory seats. These make little difference to Labour's efforts to get to 325+ in 2029. But in the north, take Cumbria as a simple example. Historically Cumbria is a mix of Tory, Lab and LD MPs. But, ignoring Farron's safe LD seat, all the rest are currently Labour, previously they were all Tory in 2019, and all projected to go Reform next time. Labour could lose the next election by losing the north alone. Burnham is rightly working on this.
On regional appointments, it's not the north but specifically the north-west. See the Guardian's handy charts:-
Race, school, gender: the makeup of Andy Burnham’s cabinet – in charts ... The north-west overrepresented
It is little surprise that Burnham, the former Greater Manchester mayor and “King of the North”, has given an outsized number of cabinet posts to MPs representing seats from the north-west.
Caught the start of Newsnight ,and Nick sodding Clegg is lecturing others about sanctimony.
He's been popping up a bit recently.
Tell me he's not planning a return to frontline politics some way or other?
His coalition was one if the best periods of government in recent decades. Maybe I am in a minority of one, but I think he put the country ahead of his party and himself and should be given credit for that. I would give him a knighthood.
It's a view. It's also a view that his refusing to discuss our membership of the EU during the Coalition resulted in Brexit.
If Clegg and Cameron had gone into the rose garden early in the Colition and called a Referendum - recommendeding staying in - it would have been won c.60:40.
Thank you, Nick Clegg.
Alexa, explain "gaslighting" to me.
To be fair, Clegg had called for an In/Out referendum on the EU. It was his 'reasoning' for abstaining on the Lisbon referendum when his party's manifesto had committed them to supporting one.
Good morning, everyone.
Imagine a world where we'd had a referendum on the Lisbon treaty. We could have arrived at a world where there was a happy consensus on Europe - this far but no further. The great missed opportunity of British politics. All because the Lib Dems could not let a manifesto promise or a vague commitment to democracy outweigh their knee-jerk desire for all things Europe.
I don't disagree, in principle, but the Lisbon treaty was already ratified by 2010. How would that have worked ?
When Brown was PM, their was a vote on parliament: the government position was that Lisbon should br ratified, the Tory amendment was, I think, that there should be a referendum. There were enough Labour Eurosceptics that Lib Dems going with their stated policy position of 'there should be a referendum' would have resulted in a referendum. Knowing this, Ed Davey led a contrived walkout of Lib Dem MPs, nominally in protest that actually there should be a referendum on British EU membership per se (yes, really). It didn't need the coalition to be in power - it was one of the rare occasions where oppositiom could have forced a position.
Davey wasn't LibDem Leader then; he was quite a way away from it as I recall (Kennedy, Clegg, Farron, Swinson wee in front of him IIRC. ) Would he really have had that amount of power back then?
Yes, it was his brief and he led the walkout. I'm surprised this isn't better recalled.
A quick exchange with Chatgpt on the subject:
Hi Chatgpt - around the time of the Lisbon treaty, when it was being debated in the UK parliament, I seem to remember Ed Davey leading a walkout of Lib Dem MPs. Is there a clip of this anywhere online?
Yes — I think you're remembering the incident on 26 February 2008, during the Commons debate on the Lisbon Treaty Bill.
What happened was:
The Liberal Democrats had tabled an amendment calling for a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EU, rather than just on the Lisbon Treaty itself.
The Speaker decided not to select that amendment for debate.
Ed Davey, then the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, repeatedly challenged the ruling on points of order, calling it "an outrage".
Deputy Speaker Sir Michael Lord eventually named and ejected Davey from the Chamber.
Nick Clegg and the rest of the Lib Dem MPs then walked out in protest.
As for video: there almost certainly was a live BBC Parliament feed, but it's surprisingly difficult to find online today.
The best leads are:
The official Hansard transcript of the exchange, which confirms the sequence of events and Davey's expulsion.
Contemporary news reports from The Guardian and Politics.co.uk, both of which describe the walkout.
A Lib Dem Voice post from the day reporting that Davey had been thrown out and that the parliamentary party had walked out.
Is there actually a clip? I couldn't find an easily accessible YouTube or Parliament-hosted video of the incident itself.
If it still exists publicly, it's most likely to be:
in the BBC Parliament archive (though much of the 2008 output isn't indexed online),
in a news package from BBC News or Sky News from 26 February 2008,
or in an archived TV recording uploaded years ago under a less obvious title.
The search results today don't surface a working video of the actual ejection or walkout.
If you're interested, I can also help dig into TV archive sources (including the BBC Genome and Internet Archive) to see whether a surviving recording of that specific Commons exchange is available somewhere obscure.
Hansard or parliament.tv would be starting points for the Commons clip.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Yes because there was no viable alternative to the right in those days.
The willingness of Wets and Dries to cohabit, however grumpily, gave the Conservatives a hefty head start throughout the 20th century. Since then, rather less so.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
They need to find a major issue around which they can unite. As the Canadian example suggests, that might not be easy (this is some of the most remarkable party political polling I've ever seen): https://x.com/Lux_Stella_/status/2080789559441248416
It's remarkable.
The Canadian Conservatives won't come near power until they fix that.
To win power the Canadian Conservatives need both the 55% of their voters who disapprove of Trump and the 45% who approve of him, they have to remain a broad church as long as Canada keeps FPTP
Off topic, I am absolutely loving the MAGA lot/anti-woke mob thinking The Odyssey was an entirely true story.
The extent of MAGA ignorance/confusion over Homer - not to mention Ancient Greek sexual mores - is spectacular.
They probably really hate the idea that the Phaeacians - a bunch of woke proto-hippy lefties if ever I saw them - are the heroes of the story and finally get Odysseus back to Ithaca.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
Well on the latest polls last week there would be a hung parliament in which Farage would have zero chance of becoming PM without Kemi's support. So the Tories may not win outright again until a post Farage era but they could still have some power in a post election deal with Reform
Which confirms exactly what I said.
For the foreseeable future, the Tories can only regain any sort of power or influence by embracing the parties to the Right of them but in doing so they sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Not necessarily, indeed if we ever got PR as Burnham wants the Tories and Reform could remain separate parties and still both win 100-200 seats each and come together to form a government after a general election.
Only in FPTP could the Tories be potentially absorbed by Reform if Reform win more seats than the Tories for the next 2 general elections or so but that also creates some risks for the right as some Tory voters would go LD over Reform
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
Well on the latest polls last week there would be a hung parliament in which Farage would have zero chance of becoming PM without Kemi's support. So the Tories may not win outright again until a post Farage era but they could still have some power in a post election deal with Reform
Which confirms exactly what I said.
For the foreseeable future, the Tories can only regain any sort of power or influence by embracing the parties to the Right of them but in doing so they sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Not necessarily, indeed if we ever got PR as Burnham wants the Tories and Reform could remain separate parties and still both win 100-200 seats each and come together to form a government after a general election.
Only in FPTP could then be potentially absorbed by Reform if Reform win more seats than the Tories for the next 2 general elections or so but that also creates some risks for the right as some Tory voters would go LD over Reform
Er, joining Reform in Government IS embracing them. It's about as much embracing them as you are ever going to see short of actaually dissolving the Tory party into Reform.
..That said Andy Burnham currently has much better political antennae and communication skills than Gordon Brown.
I know but then again 29% at the next general election could lead to a Labour landslide.
If Badenoch went full frontal One Nation Tory, dispensed with all the Reform racism- based rubbish, disposed of all the old- guard scumbags like Michael Green and called the party the New Conservatives she would be on 45%.
No she wouldn’t as half of those type of voters now vote LD. The Conservatives need to be neither LD2 nor Reform2
Become One Nation Tories and all your LDs come back home.
The Tories are already dabbling in Reform 2 narratives.
But they then lose as many in the other direction to Reform.
I started to respond to this and then I thought if you can't see swimming in the same excrement as Reform and Restore is sub optimal when there are Labour and LD votes to pick off if you tack to the centre, I am wasting my time.
Stupid argument.
Cookie is not advocating voting for Reform or Restore. He is merely pointing out that, since many people will do just that, any move by Badenoch towards the centre ground is likely to be, at best, vote neutral. And almost certainly vote negative given the centre ground is already pretty crowded.
Again, this is not to advocate for a move to the right, or even staying where the Tory party currently lies. Simply pointing out that any move towards the centre is unlikely to improve Tory electoral fortunes.
This why, in spite of the current evidence, I think the Tory party is fecked.
I genuinely believe if the Tories entered what is currently a centrist dead zone between where they currently stand and where LD and right wing Labour are to be found they could do well and quickly in the face of an unpopular Government and a pretender in Farage,who these days keeps being found out as an unreliable Trumpian Charlatan.
This is the ground Churchill, McMillan, Heath, Thatcher, Major and Cameron won upon. It is dare I say it also the narrative of three time winning PM Blair.
Unfortunately (or rather for the country at the time fortunately) none of those PMs was a facing a viable right wing alternative. As such they could afford to tack towards the centre without risking losing their right flank. That is not the case now. I actually don't see anyway the Tories ever win again unless we see either a complete collapse of support on the right or a complete fragmentation of the left. Neither of those seems likely to me and actually the latter seems the less unlikely.
Well on the latest polls last week there would be a hung parliament in which Farage would have zero chance of becoming PM without Kemi's support. So the Tories may not win outright again until a post Farage era but they could still have some power in a post election deal with Reform
Which confirms exactly what I said.
For the foreseeable future, the Tories can only regain any sort of power or influence by embracing the parties to the Right of them but in doing so they sow the seeds of their own destruction.
Not necessarily, indeed if we ever got PR as Burnham wants the Tories and Reform could remain separate parties and still both win 100-200 seats each and come together to form a government after a general election.
Only in FPTP could then be potentially absorbed by Reform if Reform win more seats than the Tories for the next 2 general elections or so but that also creates some risks for the right as some Tory voters would go LD over Reform
Er, joining Reform in Government IS embracing them. It's about as much embracing them as you are ever going to see short of actaually dissolving the Tory party into Reform.
No it isn't, as you wouldn't embrace all the Reform manifesto, you would hammer out which bits of their manifesto to implement and which bits of the Tory manifesto you would implement in a hung parliament after a general election.
Andy Burnham will unveil plans next week for adult social care in the first major policy speech of his premiership as he pledges to “face it and fix it”
The prime minister has pledged to overhaul social care so that it “operates on the NHS principle” and is free at the point of need in a move that is projected to cost £18.5 billion a year
However, The Times has been told that this “universal” offer is unlikely to cover the “daily living costs” of a care home, such as laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills
It means home residents could still face bills of tens of thousands of pounds for accommodation costs under proposals for a new National Care Service
Covering these costs for everybody would add about an extra £16 billion to annual costs, according to estimates based on average care home fees
Dame Louise Casey, who is leading a commission looking at adult social care in England, is poised to launch a national conversation this month on how it should be paid for
Because if it did, it would do for Labour's reputation for the rest of time. Without 'laundry, food, accommodation and energy bills', most people are not going to notice any difference in care costs.
So its just a death tax for everyone with no benefit.
If it removes the need to sell your home to pay for residential social care costs and instead just replaces it with a 10% levy on estates that would benefit most estates. Ironically especially in London and the South. Though just the nursing care isn’t enough
WRT the putative 10% levy on estates, the devil is in some detail. Which estates? At the moment for most people to whom it is relevant there is a disregard for couples of £1million (being 325K x 2 + the main residence allowance of £175K each.)
If the 10% kicks in at nil, or £200K or something it will bring millions into tax currently outside it. There is also the question of lawful avoidance. It would not be simple.
I believe Burnham has said he wants to scrap inheritance tax and replace it with the 10% levy. So that would mean all estates over £325k, the current threshold for IHT but with no exemption of the main property from IHT for couples up to £1 million as there would be no 40% IHT to pay, just one 10% rate.
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
A 10% dementia tax on all estates without allowances would be Burnham's poll tax
Do you want social care to exist or would you rather watch local councils to fall apart.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
You think no one will object to a 10% dementia tax when their estate is free of tax within the present regime ?
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
The children of the elderly are in their 60s and mostly don't need the money. And maybe they face having the value of parent's house being swallowed up in care home fees. Could be a good option.
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
More like we have to face up to cutting the amount of money showered in benefits.
Comments
If Burnham instead said all estates should pay the 10% levy then that would go down like a lead balloon with those with total assets under £325k though it would be hugely popular with those with estates over £1 million and their heirs
Just catching up on the thread it seems all Kemi has to do is adopt Lib Dem policies and she is home and dry
Kemi is plotting her own course with increasing popularity and support within her own party
Time will tell but I do expect her to overtake Reform and be the party of the right going into GE29 with policies on the economy, youth and defence
You are right in your comments @HYUFD
I do hope that the damage is not too severe
Managed decline doesn't work, because it is more decline than can be managed.
Going for growth is the only option. Per Capita economic growth,
Free the city, free the small businesses, take CT and CGT both down to 15%. Exempt businesses under 10 staff from the majority of the employment law passed since Blair.
See how that economy roars again!
Now it doesn't bother me one way or another whether a progressive Tory Party survives, but if it doesn't I suspect what comes next would be far worse.
Which is why no-one is going to use that attack because the problem needs to be fixed and we can't kick the can down the road any longer.
Well we could but that means the only thing our council tax will be used for is social care of people and nothing else..
As I said time will tell
The context for discussions of lower has long been "tens of thousands" and it is not remotely that yet.
They've not been given much lower migration, they have given marginally lower migration.
You could argue that it is closer now than it was under Cameron or May but instead you want to overegg the pudding by claiming it is comprehensively delivered.
I expect the children of the elderly will not be impressed
You seem to be confusing gross with net figures.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/methodologies/internationalmigrationmethodology/qualityoflongterminternationalmigrationestimatesfrom2001to2011tcm77359622.pdf
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
Also worth mentioning the Dunes of Pilat here are amazing. It is difficult to believe such a magnificent sight is not more well known. The tallest dunes in Europe. Like mountains when you are at the bottom of them.
"Burnham's poll tax" is lazy nonsense.
I’d probably prefer some sort of insurance system, but the current system is very much broken and causing huge problems for local councils.
If Burnham keeps the present allowances then he may have a point but everyone paying 10% IHT will include those who do not own property
Anyway, we have to stop being scared to raise tax to pay for the state we appear to want to live in.
Anyway, paying a 10% tax so you can keep the bulk of your inheritance might seem a good option. It's a bit like insurance, pay 10% or have a non-zero chance of it all being swallowed in care home fees.
UK start-up to supply interceptor missiles to UK military and Gulf partners
Defence Secretary announces Cambridge Aerospace set to supply new interceptor missiles - known as 'Skyhammer' and launchers to the UK Armed Forces and Gulf partners.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-start-up-to-supply-interceptor-missiles-to-uk-military-and-gulf-partners
Downside is that Shapps is on the board.
Just dug one offer out the bin, was offering me £20 odd for adults, £5 for kids, if bought a few days before a game.
Make it simple. No allowances, no options. Put accountants and tax lawyers out of business
Very many old people don't need much social care support for very long. That leaves a bill that's significant but pretty manageable if you have a house among your assets.
A smallish number of people need lots of expensive care in their final years. Enough to absorb almost all they have and then all their local council has.
Would you rather definitely pay some, or possibly pay everything? Messieurs et Mesdames, faites vos jeux.
It boils down to the challenge facing any Prime Minister, but perhaps Burnham in particular. If you want to improve this bit of society (popular), society as a whole is somehow going to have to pay for it in taxes (unpopular). Similarly, if you want to reduce taxes (popular), some bits of society are, at best, going to have to be provided differently (unpopular).
BBC News - Police investigate donations by Tice company to Reform UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yv4r5g55do
This is a once a week story, somebody helpfully leaking information to keep it going.
My sister had terminal cancer for 2 years and all her nursing home fees were paid by Wales NHS, but my former son in law's parents had dementia and paid £200,000 in fees
@Stuartinromford sums it up well
The Guardian has been extensively leaked to along side the Times.
I mean, what is 50kt when we are taking backyard physics?
Farage and Reform didn’t want the bad publicity of a convicted fraudster giving them money in the run upto the GE .
That seems to be the sum of it IMO .
So Burnham would have to handle it with care and ensure that the funds from the social care levy would pay for most care home fees for it to be viable electorally
Pause
How big is your backyard again?
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen after Cottrell donations
Nigel Farage’s party could not make or receive payments for two weeks during the 2024 general election campaign, Insight can reveal
Reform UK’s bank account was frozen during the last election after the party received potentially illegal donations from the mother of George Cottrell, the criminal who bankrolled Nigel Farage.
The party was unable to make or receive payments through its account with Arbuthnot Latham, a London private and merchant bank, for a two-week period that included polling day on July 4, 2024.
The Reform treasurer at the time repeatedly asked the bank for an explanation, urging it to unfreeze the account. However, Arbuthnot Latham refused. It said it could not unfreeze the account on demand and declined to provide information beyond saying it was performing “compliance checks”.
Days earlier, bankers had made suspicious activity reports to the National Crime Agency concerning more than £1 million in payments received by the party. They related to Fiona Cottrell, a self-styled “retired stylist” whose son paid for Farage’s staff, security, accommodation and social media output before the campaign in a series of undisclosed benefits.
In May 2024, Cottrell’s mother gave £500,000 to the party in her own name. The next month, she gave a further £1 million to a company owned by Richard Tice, Farage’s deputy, who then donated half of that sum to Reform.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/reform-uk-bank-account-frozen-george-cottrell-mother-3vr75zb9r
Not clear how far that would have to extend though.
Tim David becomes the latest player to question Usman Tariq's bowling action.
https://x.com/CallMeSheri1_/status/2080970876951085143
I reckon he could give Luke Littler a run for his money.
I presume we are starting with needing to raise the current iHT revenue PLUS up to £18.5bn per annum. iHT raised ~£8bn per annum but it is increasing.
And surely it will require some reforms to lifetime gifts (especially for example "unneeded" income being giftable with aiui no tax - though this is not my specialism).
This scheme is, effectively, a form of collective social insurance, afaics.
The whole social care question is nuanced.
Not everyone ends up needing residential or dementia care - indeed, many live at home, cared for by members of the family. Obviously, there are some who will die before care becomes an issue.
The other side of social care (and which isn't talked about) is the care of children. There are children with physical and mental disabilities requiring constant care and whereas, to be blunt, many of them would have died 30 or 40 years back, now they survive into adulthood and beyond the point when they can be cared for by parents or guardians.
This means either domicilary care or specialist residential care in a dedicated facility which may involve transport.
That is also all within the local authority purview and the children don't usually have assets which can be drawn on (or a charge put against) to cover costs.
There's also the question of those who provide care within the family - the current Carers' Allowance has its critics and we have to accept the enormous work done by people to support both older and younger relatives.
Why would somebody convicted of Wire Fraud want to hide the source of the donations?
I think that's where the story is headed.
I work in this sector, this is literally my day job.
It's the casting of Helen of Troy that utterly enraged them because you know Helen of Troy was a real person.
From another place
Homer described Helen 4 times. He never described her physical appearance. The word "xanthis" meaning fair haired was used 150 years later by Sappho.
Helen was the daughter of Zeus and Queen Leda, Zeus appeared as a swan and impregnated Leda, causing Helen to be hatched from an egg.
https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2026_hungarian_grand_prix_-_infringement_-_car_44_-_unnecessarily_impeding_of_car_81.pdf
Ferrari’s awesome team-to-driver communication strikes again.
A policy of a playing field for most secondary schools (long term) would be a start.
And I don't know how you get the oil and vinegar to mix again.
I suspect Faeage is crapping bricks. This is only going one way.
As the Canadian example suggests, that might not be easy (this is some of the most remarkable party political polling I've ever seen):
https://x.com/Lux_Stella_/status/2080789559441248416
Matthew Parris, Ken Clarke and John Redwood rarely agreed with each other on everything, but they had (and have) no issue being in the same party, and, for example, all backed Rwanda.
The Canadian Conservatives won't come near power until they fix that.
For the foreseeable future, the Tories can only regain any sort of power or influence by embracing the parties to the Right of them but in doing so they sow the seeds of their own destruction.
https://bustimes.org/localities/swindon-swindon
Only in FPTP could the Tories be potentially absorbed by Reform if Reform win more seats than the Tories for the next 2 general elections or so but that also creates some risks for the right as some Tory voters would go LD over Reform
https://www.fia.com/system/files/decision-document/2026_hungarian_grand_prix_-_infringement_-_car_12_-_yellow_flag_infringement.pdf
A recent train journey.
Purple shoes on a fellow traveller
https://x.com/Manterik/status/2081073886469177697