[Closed] Is May about to call an election?

It says a lot about the ingrained sense of entitlement in certain sections of the population

I'm sure there are many of those, but there are also many who would accept paying if they thought they were getting value for money. As I said above, in her work my Mrs comes back from some care homes pretty angry at how people are being ripped off and they don't even know it. Just as with the rental industry, this is going to create inflation of care costs and we all know who will benefit. The other thing that will happen is that families will resist getting the help they need to the massive detriment of those who need care, and the families who have to shoulder the burden instead. As far as I can see the only people who will gain from this policy care home owners and shareholders of the big care providers. In that respect it's a classic tory policy I guess.

[quote=martinhutch ]It really is a shrewd move though. These folks are so far under Dacre's thumb that there really is no alternative vote for Labour or even Liberal, and they are normally in safe Tory seats.

Notwithstanding the safe seats bit, the crucial thing this election is turnout (that's also something which screws with opinion polls). If this truly is something such voters don't like and can't be successfully spun (and I suspect it might be) then it could result in those voters deciding not to vote. Given we're talking about the section of the population currently most likely to vote that could have a significant impact.

Meanwhile it's just possible that social media campaigns to encourage under 25s to vote could also have an effect.

I'm sure many ageing middle class people sitting on >500k properties will realise, this could cost them and their kids hundreds of thousands.

Maybe I've not understood the proposal. How would people loose £100,000's ? Isn't it just that the value of your assets plus your home up to £100,000 will be taken into consideration when you "home care" needs are calculated, i.e care you receive when you are still in your own home. When you move into a care/ nursing home your family will be better of because they can keep £100,000. Here in Wales that'll be £ 24,000.

Maybe I've not understood the proposal. How would people loose £100,000's ? Isn't it just that the value of your assets plus your home up to £100,000 will be taken into consideration when you "home care" needs are calculated, i.e care you receive when you are still in your own home. When you move into a care/ nursing home your family will be better of because they can keep £100,000.

Yes, that's correct, but whereas previously you could have free care from the comfort of your country manor house, now you will be slowly devaluing your manor house to a similar level to a garage.
And surely you aren't suggesting mixing with the commoners in a nursing home? You'd die of shame before then surely? 🙄

Good time to buy shares in care home providers innit

It'll solve the housing crisis, this surfeit of mansion houses that will have to be sold on the death of the owners.

Presumably though they'll get bought up by Care Home providers

Genius.

Is this a time to call her a vile ****?
I hate her more than Blair. There, I've said it.

The thing about paying for care from your assets is a difficult and thorny issue and looks unfair whatever way you look at it.

Why should the general taxpayer pay for someones care when they have the money to pay for it themselves? Not using the assets to pay for care only does one thing - allows the general taxpayer to subsidise middle class childrens inheritance.

On the other hand why should someone who has built up assets not get subsidised care when their ****less neighbour does?

Good time to buy shares in care home providers innit

or pillow manufacturers 😉

Yes, that's correct, but whereas previously you could have free care from the comfort of your country manor house, now you will be slowly devaluing your manor house to a similar level to a garage.

Why should the general taxpayer pay for someones [s]care [/s] [b]cancer treatment[/b] when they have the money to pay for it themselves?

How does that sound to you?

Is old age / dementia not a condition worth treatment?

In, fact if you've lived a long and healthy life, paid taxes and NI right through, and who knows, saved a bit up along the way.... isn't being old an indicative factor in having a higher chance of suffering from old age diseases like infirmness, dementia, etc.

No - better to piss it away, and get some sort of fundable disease instead.

Even then some might come back if they go into a care home and they get to keep £100,000.

You think that will happen? There's massive pressure on care home places (hence why they're so bloody expensive) and in-home care is now the preferred option. There are going to be legions of people out there who are cash poor and property rich who are going to lose out big time. The other element is that the rich will no doubt find way to avoid it where your average middle class property owner doesn't have the means.

I thought the present system allowed local authorities to include your house value in a means test for social care? I don't want to admit reading the Tory manifesto, so what exactly is different about their proposals?

[quote=tjagain ]The thing about paying for care from your assets is a difficult and thorny issue and looks unfair whatever way you look at it.

Why should the general taxpayer pay for someones care when they have the money to pay for it themselves? Not using the assets to pay for care only does one thing - allows the general taxpayer to subsidise middle class childrens inheritance.
On the other hand why should someone who has built up assets not get subsidised care when their ****less neighbour does?

Regardless of the assets built up, why should someone who's contributed their entire adult life via tax and NI, get shafted in their later years?

It'll solve the housing crisis, this surfeit of mansion houses that will have to be sold on the death of the owners.

No. If a family can afford the fee's any home can be kept. It only has to be sold if payments have been deffered and payment is due. Many families might choose to sell a property to make real time payments. But that their choice, thats how it's now and will be in the future.
My mother will be going into a home shortly. If my siblings and myself think keeping mums home makes financial sense we'll do that and pay her fee's ourselves. As long as they get a cheque every month that's all the care home cares about.

The massive pressure on care home places is due tho the fact there is no profit in it so no one is opening more homes. Its bloody expensive because it is.

I did all the sums for this ten years ago. cost per nursing home bed per week is around £600 for the legal minimum standards . State pays £500. add in a few extras and costs will be £800+ per week. Yes you can still make a profit if all you take is private payers and charge £1000+ a week but even then returns are poor. 3-5% profit is what most care homes run at.

The other element is that the rich will no doubt find way to avoid it where your average middle class property owner doesn't have the means.

Of course they have the means - its not overly difficult to liquidate some assets and pass them to kids/grandkids before they are needed.

Boardingbob - as I said it looks unfair no matter which way you look at it. If the state pays for care for everyone then all that happens is the middle class children get a greater inheritance. No differnce to the person in care. Why should the general taxpayer subsidise middle class childrens inheritence?

allows the general taxpayer to subsidise middle class childrens inheritance.

So if you own a £150,000 house you're middle class?

So if you own a £150,000 house you're middle class?

If the mortgage is paid off, yes. I've always defined middle class as having a means of income from your assets, and not just your labour. Obviously that doesn't make you rich, but's that's another argument.

Will be interesting to see the impact of this Tory manifesto in the various election polls in the run up to the general election.

Can only be good for Labour really, looks like Labour will close on the Tories , a lot of marginal older voters will not vote Tory on the strength of this death tax.
As stated earlier, it's the very properties in the South of England that have the highest market value. Can't see that many would be Tories voting their inheritance to their children away.

How does that sound to you?

Is old age / dementia not a condition worth treatment?

Depends. Cancer care can be covered for a lot of people by insurance, as lots of people get it way before the retirement age.

Where as you can't really insure against the symptoms of old age - because on a long enough time line the probability of you developing of them is 1.

This is why society needs a sensible discussion about just how socially healthy it is to be extending our lives by so much, when technology hasn't advanced enough to extend our working and healthy lives by the same amount.

Of course they have the means

Ok, it may not be the means they're missing, just the shear grasping immorality of it. My very middle class and fairly well-off father-in-law informed his kids years ago that before they go making plans about how to spend their inheritances, they should consider that his and their mum's care might wipe out much of it as he thought it was only proper that he should pay his own way*.

*And obviously live in a nice care home as opposed to some local authority hell-hole.

You think that will happen? There's massive pressure on care home places (hence why they're so bloody expensive) and in-home care is now the preferred option. There are going to be legions of people out there who are cash poor and property rich who are going to lose out big time.

In a few cases perhaps, but the care local authorities can offer you in your own home is pretty limited. Certainty not 24hr attendance or the means to deal with more advanced dementia. I like millions of other families realise that unless we can become full time carer's our parents have to go into homes, whatever the cost. I know your only banging on about this because it's a Tory proposal so fair enough. In the mean time I've got to go and look at a nursing home later this evening 🙁

I know your only banging on about this because it's a Tory proposal so fair enough.

Well not quite, the aforementioned father-in-law has dementia so we'll be in a similar positions sooner rather than later. Also I completely agree with the principal that people should not expect indefinite care for free when they have money to pay for it, but I think in the long run it would be better implemented by an increase in general taxation or national insurance to properly fund a state-run care system.

BruceWee - Member
Do you need reminding what we baby boomers went through for the likes of you?
You mean like a fully funded NHS, free university education, the prospect of actually getting on the property ladder, stable employment...

Life must have been hell.

We had ration books until we were 8 and rickets, polio, TB and all manner of bullets to dodge, our mums and dads had just fought and lots had died in a war. There were no credit cards, we had to save every penny for the 10% deposit we had to have for a house it took five years to save for. Then we had no colour tellys until we were twenty and no stereo, no phones, no sky, no plasma telly none of the other must have shit you all seem to think you're entitled to AND a new gaff.

And our footballers had to have proper jobs to have to work in even after they won the world cup.

You lot have no idea and yes sign me up for that suicide booth, not for one moment would I want to ask anything off you and your state.

My parents probably have assets of around £750 000 - a nice house in a nice suburb and a few bits and piece they have not spent. If they require care then I will use this money to ensure they have the care they need even if it means no inheritance for me.

1) it allows a bit more flexibility in that I can use that money to purchase home care for them and 2) I believe it to be right

However my position is unusual in that I have the skills and knowledge to make it work. Many people in my position would not

this is all discussed with my family and if I need to give up work to do this I will - but I will be paying myself a salary out of their money.

[quote=fifeandy ]Of course they have the means - its not overly difficult to liquidate some assets and pass them to kids/grandkids before they are needed.

It's a lot harder for the moderately affluent - particularly given we're talking mainly about the asset of the home people are living in here. The rich have assets they don't need to live which are a lot easier to pass on. Regarding care costs there are also already measures in place which mean money passed to your children counts as part of your assets when assessing eligibility for council funding.

I also have an immediate personal interest here - mum is currently in sheltered accommodation, and this would potentially hit as she owns her flat, though the expectation is that she will at some point move to a care home. I recently sold the family home she was living in before and liquidated that asset.

[quote=tjagain ]If they require care then I will use this money to ensure they have the care they need even if it means no inheritance for me.

This.

this is all discussed with my family and if I need to give up work to do this I will - but I will be paying myself a salary out of their money.

I've been doing something similar, but on a part time basis. But mentally I'm not capable of making the step to being a full time carer 🙁 best of luck if you choose this route yourself.

taxi

Its both my fortune and misfortune that I am a nurse specialising in care of the elderly - but I still don't know how I will react should it come to this with it being my own family when its different.

We had to pay for us pencils...

Not all of you did. Poor people around now too.

we had to save every penny for the 10% deposit we had to have for a house it took five years to save for

Five years? That all? Easy!

none of the other must have shit you all seem to think you're entitled to

That's bollocks. But apart from that you are right some stuff is better now, much better. And some stuff's worse.

we had to get a job at mill, walking 15 miles each way

And no doubt when you got home your dad would thrash you to sleep with his belt? 😉

we had to get a job at mill, walking 15 miles each way
And no doubt when you got home your dad would thrash you to sleep with his belt?

Needs Monty Python 4 Yorkshiremen sketch

Well if I'm honest, I do feel it's about time the baby boomers started paying their way.

That said I lucked out and got the last of the final salary pensions, house prices weren't that bad when I bought in. Never wanted Sky. Decent job too.

But no university grant although fees hadn't started) and I doubt I'll see the rise in assets my parents did. They reckon the same.

So yes. The OAPs have all the cash - they're going to have to fund the country.

igm - Member
Well if I'm honest, I do feel it's about time the baby boomers started paying their way.

We still are,fifty years after starting our first job, pensions taxed to the hilt, those of us lucky to have a pension that is, after that bastard Brown raided the pension pot, then you lot ****ed up the banking system and left us to earn nothing from our savings.

Have you any idea just how much tax we've contributed in our lives?It would make your eyes water, the only thing that gives me a warm feeling as Crown green beckons, is that with any luck the mess you eighties Thatchers generation greed is good mob have created may cause you to have to work into your nineties to clear the debt burden this screwed up mess of a country is lumbered with.

Well, you don't sound at all grumpy about everything.

Anyway, how are you planning to vote?

Good to see May is keeping her side of the Faustian bargain...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-39969306

It would have been a shame if the tory press hadn't received something for the slavish support.

deadlydarcy - Member
Well, you don't sound at all grumpy about everything.

Anyway, how are you planning to vote?

Well there's a thing, at the start of all this for the 2nd timein my life, I was going to vote [s]fascist[/s] Tory and hate myself for it, but I had my reasons, but now, no I just won't vote, I'm in one of those seats where my vote will make no difference anyway, it never has, not since the hey days of the Lib Dems when they very nearly got in locally, but in truth, 'grumpy' yeah I guess that sums it up perfectly it's an age thing, you get that way, as everything you're used to crumbles away.

8)

Have you any idea just how much tax we've contributed in our lives?

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but hitting the baby boomers will surely have a bigger impact on my children's generation, rather than me.

So, if I eventually go into care and our savings and house value are used to pay for the care, where I can keep the £100,000.

In a lot of cases, the money for my care will be eaten up pretty quickly, the only people who will lose out on this will be my children.
The house will be sold, my children's generation still won't be able to afford it, and only the very wealthy will be able to buy it, and then rent it.

So, it would appear that it will be my children who will ultimately lose out financially, I'll be scattered in the wind somewhere on the Afan trails.

Fallon getting a pasting on the lack of costing and wishy washy lack of detail in the Tory manifesto on newsnight right now

http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-election-poll-ipsos-idUKKCN18E19S

Denis99 - Member

Perhaps I'm missing the point here, but hitting the baby boomers will surely have a bigger impact on my children's generation, rather than me.

Yup, exactly. It's pretty odd that this is depicted as being hardest on the person that can't pass so much down to their kids, rather than being hardest on the kids who receive less (and who are less likely to own a place of their own).

@kimbers, quite right they are getting a pasting for it being un-costed with no obvious way to fund many of the pledges they have made.

So we can choose between un-costed to probably be covered by further borrowing and 'costed' with giant black hole that can only be covered by further borrowing.

Fallon getting a pasting

And Priti Patel, along with the dementia tax is being pasted by Angela Rayner and the audience on QT.

Fallon and Patel are both terrible tonight, most enjoyable

getting a pasting for it being un-costed with no obvious way to fund many of the pledges they have made.

I think they would get pasted in any case, 'if the cap fits...' etc

Politics seems strange at this moment in time, at least to me. We have turkeys voting for Christmas, in the shape of labour voters potentially going to Cons. Everybody loves the health service but the result of this election is likely to provide a mandate to change it forever (probably not in a good way).

Tonight the main parties don't even bother to turn up. May because she know's she has won and Corbyn because he is useless (potentially nice bloke and all).

Society seems to be the big loser here. I can see a way to make it work for me but I just can't get enthusiastic about it.

Be fair. May is also useless

So we can choose between un-costed to probably be covered by further borrowing and 'costed' with giant black hole that can only be covered by further borrowing.

You choose based on what you want the government to do, what are it's intentions. Forget about borrowing and made-up black holes of yours - all governments spend money, taxes are paid to create the money - but what do you want the money to be spent on

In today's Grauniad:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/18/secret-plans-protect-le-pen-french-republic-emerge

Meanwhile Britain quietly ushers in its own despot without a whimper.

so pandering to the racists would cost us 6bn

brexit is turning out to be a bargain
[img] [/img]

Oh come on kimbers, you know they are not all racists. we've been told often enough. Some are just knuckle draggers.

So let's ask the question we all want to - what percentage of Brexies are racist/xenophobic/overly nationalist?

TJ et al I'll say this again. In France (far to the left of the UK politically) you have VAT on food, childrens shoes and clothes, full rate on utilities, much higher taxes generally includinga a wealth tax, when it comes time for social care the state [b]means tests the elderly person and their children.[/b] oh and by the way they have much higher Inhertiance taxes too.

I don't see any posts here critising the Tory manifesto from people who might vote Conservative. Its just the usual long stream of moaning from the anti-Tory brigade.

Same old same old

So let's ask the question we all want to - what percentage of Brexies are racist/xenophobic/overly nationalist?

Diane says its 200%

Same old same old

Thankfully we have your posts, full of truth to shine a light.

There is nothing of any substance in the Tory manifesto to criticise. I'll give them their due, they're really brazening this one out - they don't think they have to have any actual policies - the polls say they don't, so they're not.

Anyway, I thought you'd stopped following the election coverage...?

Diane says its 200%

Same old same old.

when it comes time for social care the state means tests the elderly person and their children.

Do you have a citation for this? Ta

Diane says its 200%

a brexie singling out a female black labour MP to mock , you go smash those preconceived stereotypes we have of leavers 😉

Hammond more recently fluffed his figures

FWIW I think the tories idea of shaking up social care are long overdue, I posted as much a few pages back

The rest of their manifesto is just a huge uncosted wishlist though

no wonder when the chancellor is so poor with numbers!

I like the bit where the Tories want to abolish the Serious Fraud Office

good job they havent got a guy doing international trade with absolutely no scruples, regards armns sales, bribes, dodgy expenses, geniocidal regimes etc

https://www.channel4.com/news/liam-fox-sri-lanka-and-a-friend-called-werritty

[img] [/img]

shared values...
[img] [/img]

I think the Saudis are still pissed at us over al-yammaha, looks like May has fixed that problem
[img] [/img]

they don't think they have to have any actual policies

Which is why people should be forced to do these sort of things;

[url= https://uk.isidewith.com/political-quiz ]isidewith[/url]

I don't see any posts here critising the Tory manifesto from people who might vote Conservative. Its just the usual long stream of moaning from the anti-Tory brigade.

Look at mine again. Perhaps I was not clear but I'm not in favour of Tory health service policy at all. In addition, I'm not in favour of leaving EU.

She's at a press conference in Edinburgh today but the press have been asked not to say where - and they're OK with this...

jamba> Same old same old

Oh, the irony.

Just a thought? Are we still living in a democracy?

well she has ditched levesson so they owe her.

Any views on this Jamby as you were active in the hacked off campaign

Just a thought? Are we still living in a democracy?

Yes, until June 8th.

kerley - Member

Which is why people should be forced to do these sort of things;

isidewith

That Sir, is scary. Although I did not give a weighting to any of the questions it claims I should vote UKIP! I feel I ought to sue.

Which is why people should be forced to do these sort of things;

isidewith

I never enjoy these, they always claim I am a lib dem when I think I am green/ labour

Umm.. the point is that they tell you if who you think you want to vote for is who you should acutally vote for based on policy.

Dismissing them as wrong is surely the problem that they are trying to fix, no? People not voting rationally?

But I appreciate that it does not take tactical considerations into account.

isidewith

The reason the policy based decision websites are useless is that the small parties who know they won't win promise the moon on a stick with a raft of popular stuff because they know they'll never have to impliment it.

The two main parties can't make ludicrous wonderful promises because they know they might win and have to deliver. (Well, perhaps this time one can...)

Innit, as a left libertarian, it's weird how them questionnaires tell me I'm closest aligned to The Greens...

With me it put the two parties I'd consider as 85% matches. Except for me one is a clear choice for tactical reasons.

labour at 83% Libs and greens at 79%
Apparently I am rather left wing and like multiculturalism and collective decisions...an absolute revelation to me 😉

With PR i would vote green currently with FPTP whoever is most likely to beat a Tory

With PR i would vote green currently with FPTP whoever is most likely to beat a Tory

65-70% Green / Labour / Lib Dem

Bit wishy washy.....

47% UKIP

43% Tory

And to satisfy other's questions - since University years I've been a swing LD-Tory voter; mainly LD but voted Tory last time because I thought they were managing the economy well post the banking crisis, and I'd have been very happy with another Tory LD coalition.

But things have changed...... considerably, both on policy but also a local level, in which the incumbent Tory refused to back the large contingent of remain constituents that elected her and instead followed the party line in the brexit debate and vote. So she failed to represent me on the issue that i feel matters most, I double dare her to come and ask me whether she can count on my support.

I must be the definition of a swing voter with my most probable being UKIP at 64%, with lab/con/lib roughly level pegging in the high 50's and least probable SNP at 52%

I'd have been very happy with another Tory LD coalition

Me too, thought I was more or less alone in that department.