Is May about to call an election?

All these ideas up there, what it also highlights is how much Corbyn etc. are not smart political operators, unless he has a list of devastating questions for May at their interview thingy.The list of open goals is increasing…
How do you propose to reduce immigration when you have failed completely at it before? Why that hasn’t been on billboards yet I don’t know.

What Macron did well with against the fascist was to have smart, good answers to the insults and accusations. I don’t think JC can manage that.

If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.

You should be Labour party strategist – I honestly think that might win it for them.

You know what – I agree with using peoples assets to pay for care. I believe its the right thing to do. Otherwise we are subsidising middle class children’s inheritances. I also believe the triple lock on pensions is wrong.

However I am astonished it was put in the tory manifesto. An obvious vote loser and an easy target for Labour. Usually the tories are very clever in managing their policies to make electoral capital out of them and I can see no reason why this was put in bar they thought it the right thing to do and believed they had such a lead they would be able to shrug it off

Hmmm, brexit negotiations.

Kier Starmer, or Boris Johnson?

Yep people should pay their own way through care when they can. However it’s so easy to fiddle the system to make sure you don’t have the assets that it’s a joke, the ones that will avoid the most are those who can afford it. The ones who can’t will as usual bear the brunt of it.

If it happens then a large amount of cash in the housing market gets very liquid…
If your house is valued at a mere 500k then you have 400k to go onto your care, sounds simple, but once it kicks in and your debt/tab is up at near your house value it means whoever fronted you the cash needs their money. It then creates another sub prime style security issue where the funding is reliant on house prices staying stable at a minimum or rising. Factor in much reduced inheritance and hand outs to kids/grandkids (one of the common ways to get a deposit these days) and the housing market has another wobble.

Highlight version – it’s a very complicated issue 🙂 Changing one thing will change a lot more, the knock on effect could be huge and then who picks up the care tab for all these people?

#FullyCostedMyArse

An interesting adjunct to this is everyone even the rich are happier in more equal countries – so although the rich don’t want to be taxed more actually taxing them more and redistributing wealth makes them happier

That is the essence of the book ‘The Spirit Level’, that we ALL do better if the lower earners are lifted up.

I think it makes complete sense.

If he wants the next 10% swing the best thing he could say would be he would quit if elected PM.

Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.

It is, an entirely unsurprising one too. My flabber is still gasted that the Tories either didn’t realise what an electoral landmine that was, or were so arrogant that they didn’t care.

One other possibility is that they thought it needed doing and have gambled that their lead is sufficient to push through unpopular (but necessary in their opinion) reforms. That being the case, I think it’s quite commendable they’ve decided to be honest with the electorate rather than magicking it out in the next parliament, likewise the free school meals. The conventional wisdom is of course that the voters don’t want the truth….

Not so sure about this. People would be confused. I would say a lot of folk are just getting used to him. To whip him away would open the flood gates for lots of bad publicity.

Agree, would be a bad thing to do. Who would be the next leader, would they have a mandate as they weren’t elected, yet another election etc,. etc,. The more people see him (and more importantly the more people see May) and don’t judge based on the BS in the media the better chance he has.
Relies on open minds unfortunately and also not enough time left.

Do any forumites who are left leaning, actually feel insulted when the term “Lefties” is bandied about?

Doesn’t bother me at all, nor does calling me a Marxist. Not sure why I would be insulted

Would be like calling a Tory a righty, which would be as silly as it sounds.

‘Lefty’ is exactly how I describe myself. It also helps to explain why I have voted for four different left-of-centre political candidates/parties over the years rather than being wedded to one party irrespective of its policies and manifesto.

What ninfan seems to be pretending to not realise is that when he uses the term, it is attributing personal qualities or failings to the term, like ‘whiney, smug, superior, condescending’. Of course these ‘qualities’ are present in the posting styles of many people on this forum past and present not least ninfan in the case of the last three but not the first one.

But hey, we are a massively self-selecting sample of people. The vast majority of politically thoughtful people do not post on here or other special interest forums and are probably very different (to me included obvs) in their debating, errr, ‘style’!

I’m not convinced they won’t yet backtrack on it “after careful review”; put it down to “listening to the public” and gather back all those lost votes and more.

I’m actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.

What I’m hoping is that this policy was specifically designed to appeal to voters like me. They probably assumed they had the old vote completely sewn up and wanted a significant percentage of the under 40s to really give them a mandate to have and do whatever the **** they want.

I have absolutely no desire to vote for them so hopefully this will bite them hard.

I’m actually in favour of this policy. When it comes to inheritance my personal view is that any money or assets you have left when you die should go to a random memeber of the public in a lottery system but going to the state is the second best option.

That is possibly the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. What about families who lose their main bread-winner? You do realise “the State” will just absorb it and it will go into painting the House of Commons toilets? What about people spending their entire lives paying taxes to “the State”, only for “the State” to take even more when they die? What about “the State’s” responsibility to it’s citizens? You are suggesting that everything is ultimately owned by “the State”, which is dangerous, to say the least. In your scenario, “the State” can’t wait for people to die, so they can take their assets, so why assist pensioners with heating, bills etc? Hell, they may as well bring in forced euthanasia “for the good of “the State””.

The whole “going to a random member of the public by lottery” is just as daft” Why the hell should families give up everything their spouse, or other relative, has worked hard to build? For example: My Gran died last December: My Mum and her brothers, spent a lot of time looking in on her, caring for her, taking her places. She owned her own home, she refused to go into a care home. She died at home, where she wanted to be. Why the hell should the State come in and take all that away?

I’m actually laughing to myself how absurd what you said is. Get a grip.

It’s a difficult situation –
Person 1 – does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care

Person 2 – starts off life as person 1, works hard, makes sacrifices, creates jobs/wealth gets 0% social care

My small business that employees 8 people creates over £150k tax (excluding vat which is £60k +)

So over 25 years that’s £3.5m – (excluding vat) my enterprise has paid in, to be frank the gov owes me my arse wiped once a day.

Person 1 – does **** all all their lives, sits on arse, creates no jobs/Wealth- gets 100% social care

does that include those who work in social care, working long hours being paid a pittance to wipe your mum and dads arses ?

Mikey – try reading what I wrote.

If the state pays for all care its only the children of middle class parents that get any benefit – effectively the state is subsidising their inheritances and thus perpetuating wealth inequality. I am a lefty. I work in the care of the older adult. I have been politically active for a long time.

For the state to pay all care would cost several pence on income tax.

Why should we all pay more tax so that the children of middle class parents get big inheritances?

I agree it looks unfair – it looks unfair which ever way you look at this issue.

My own parents have assets of around 1/2 – 3/4 million. this will be used to pay for their care should they need it because I believe it to be right and because that money will give me and them greater flexibility in organising their care.

I understand that the Tory-voting demographic relies heavily on older people. Recent proposals on pension, winter fuel and such, the senility tax and the selling-off of the NHS all affect them profoundly,

The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much.

@ tjagain

I wasn’t referring to your post.

Tj great post, pretty much my thoughts. Can’t imagine there’s a completely fair solution.

If the state pays for all care its only the children of middle class parents that get any benefit – effectively the state is subsidising their inheritances and thus perpetuating wealth inequality. I am a lefty. I work in the care of the older adult. I have been politically active for a long time.

Great points, come up with a system that also works, I think my criticism is not of the policy but the implementation and the huge risks associated with it.

The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much

Option 2 – she can afford to loose some of the oldies, in many places it wont matter but if she wants to catch some of the younger voters who are suffering then she needs to show the pain is shared.
The biggest threat to labour isn’t JC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39949130
It’s the fact that generationally things have moved on, to have any serious concept of who the monster was in the 80’s you have to be in your late 30’s or 40’s at least. Otherwise it’s just something your parents went on about.

On one hand that is a very good thing, political parties are the party of who they represent today not everything they have ever done (good and bad), on the other hand some of the this or that for life, never vote for’s are now coming into play.

Back of fag packet calculatiuons

half a million plus people receive care in residential settings – total cost around 20 billion a year. 1,2 million folk receive care at home. cost another 30 billion. thats 50 billion a year for elderly care for the very minimal standard of care they receive. Add 25%% to that if you want to pay the staff properly. Add another 25% to that if you want a decent standard of care not just the minimal standard we get.

so to give all elderly folk in the UK care to a decent standard would cost the country 100 billion a year Total UK budget is around 700 billion. Now of that hundred billion spend only some folk would have that ability to pay – say half. So to give all elderly folk care to a good standard on the state would be 7% extra on the taxation systems. income tax up from 40% ish to 43%

Are you willing to pay 3% extra on taxes so that middle class children can get their inheritances intact?

mikey74 – Member

@ tjagain

I wasn’t referring to your post.

Fair enough

Not my point at all, who picks up the tab when house prices crash due to a combination of factors (including the removal of inheritance as a major contribution to deposits) and the assets of the care homes is suddenly not worth what they are owed? Do the residents pick up the shortfall (from what?) does the government?
What stops people with enough wealth and skill from making sure their assets never reach the test?

What stops people with enough wealth and skill from making sure their assets never reach the test?

Not a lot – which is why this is irrelevant to the rich

The only explanation I see is that TM wants to lose. The only question remaining is by how much.

Maybe she sees what kind of a disaster Brexit and it’s negotiations are going to be and wants an excuse to have nothing to do with it?

and the other points TJ? Letting people borrow against a variable asset is madness at that stage of life – it leaves the government as the backer open to a huge bill while pretending to shift the risk away. If a care home knows the government pays a shortfall whats to stop them selling off property cheap?

It’s a positive idea that actually needs some serious implementation. The only good thing is it’s showing May up for being quite out of touch.

I suspect this was actually an honest policy from May. Good economics, telling the truth, ruddy awful politics

Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that

tjagain – Member
I suspect this was actually an honest policy from May. Good economics

Except as said it’s a hedged bet on the housing market with no clear idea who is underwriting this.

and more importantly for people

https://www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Klunk we should all get the same regardless, I accept the tax I generate supports the UK as a whole, i don’t think it’s fair to be taxed twice for the same service. I would happily pay 3% more and I don’t support the reduction in corp tax – it needs to go the other way.

I don’t have an issue with the policy per se, but the policy is not even handed.

It penalises people on the lottery of what disease they get. And if you want to go further; penalises those that stay healthier for longer (which is dictated, not solely but in no small part to lifestyle and choices)

So get cancer, or diabetes or liver disease and your care will be covered and your house passes on to your estate.

Don’t get those, live longer, increase your likelihood of dementia or senility needing home or residential care – and use your estate to fund it.

How many votes would that lose?

But like much this government seems to be doing; it’s what can we get away with without it totally backfiring rather than doing what’s right and fair.

We need a proper social care tax levied across all individuals and businesses, reducing corp tax while targeting the middle class for their houses and pension funds is not helping any one.

The reality is that with even a small amount of tax planning you can escape it all anyway so it’s a moot point and Theresa knows this it’s simply a Tory tactic to get piss poor people to vote for them while The middle class sort their inheritance plan.

1. Give your house to the kids
2. Pay them the market rent
3. Don’t die for 7 years
4. Keep £100k in bank
5. Buy gold with spare cash
6. Make sure your business is Ltd

That’s will be £1,000 consultancy fee please –

Theotherjonv

Its not that simple. many folk end up in care homes for other reasons and certainly in my area those with severe dementia end up in NHS care.

I didn’t say it was simple, I said it wasn’t fair.

You know far more – what proportion of people in care homes / receiving residential care for prolonged periods are getting that for other reasons than dementia? I’m prepared to understand more

Personally I would prefer complete state funded care from taxation and much harsher death duties ( to reduce wealth inequality) and higher general taxation. But no one would vote for that

Well no tory would.

theotherjonv

Hard to quantify and I know of no stats. From my experience I would say most folk in care homes have a degree of dementia but for perhaps 3/4 its not the main diagnosis. Diabetes complications, arthritis / poor mobility, are big issues.

Most folk end up in care homes because of multiple issues of which a degree of dementia is one

I work in an NHS unit for people whos needs are too complex to manage incare homes ( nowadays – also working in care homes in the past)

Our unit costs several times what care home costs are but the care is better and the people living there are those with complex needs

Give your house to the kids
2. Pay them the market rent
3. Don’t die for 7 years

That would be a very bad idea for many potential reasons if its your home. See 3.3 in particular.

http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/support-services/advice/practice-notes/making-gifts-of-assets/

Most folk end up in care homes because of multiple issues of which a degree of dementia is one

So how are they funded / will they be funded in future? A person who needs (home) care because of say arthritis vs someone with arthritis AND a degree of dementia. Is one funded and the other not, one part funded for the arthritis care but not for the dementia….

As you say, not simple. I think the issue for many is that you can’t insure against dementia. The Insurance Cos know their chip in making money is that if they pay out for an ‘illness’ then they dementia becomes less likely (not impossible though) whereas if they ‘win’ on not paying out for an illness then almost inevitably eventually they’ll pay out for dementia in the end