Guest Kopfkino Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 It's also worth noting that the Nordic companies encourage competition within public services, for example private companies are allowed to run public hospitals in Norway. Something that people here seem to think is preposterous idea
leicsmac Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 5 minutes ago, KingGTF said: It's also worth noting that the Nordic companies encourage competition within public services, for example private companies are allowed to run public hospitals in Norway. Something that people here seem to think is preposterous idea Can you elaborate on this?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Side note - I see Boris is doing wonders for diplomatic relations again... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/17/boris-johnson-apologises-after-discussing-alcohol-in-sikh-temple
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 15 minutes ago, MattP said: She's just become a figure of fun now, no one even criticises her anymore, just something to be laughed at. Why do they even let her out? Just now, DJ Barry Hammond said: Side note - I see Boris is doing wonders for diplomatic relations again... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/17/boris-johnson-apologises-after-discussing-alcohol-in-sikh-temple Why do they even let him out?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 2 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Why do they even let her out? From the clip, even if they had let her out, it seems pure chance that she managed to find her way there!
Guest Kopfkino Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 32 minutes ago, leicsmac said: Can you elaborate on this? I've just tried looking it up and It's difficult to find much bar a small mention in the economist so maybe I'm wrong but I'm sure it's true, I shall endeavour to look further. Though I did find this on Sweden which is pretty similar. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden It's strange how the Scandinavian countries are seen as these left-wing utopias but it's not really the case and the right should really look at chunks of the model but whilst the Conservatives rule the right in this country, there is no chance.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 45 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Side note - I see Boris is doing wonders for diplomatic relations again... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/17/boris-johnson-apologises-after-discussing-alcohol-in-sikh-temple "Whenever we go to Mumbai or Delhi, we have to bring clinky....clinky, in our luggage" If ever they do a remake of "It Ain't Half Hot, Mum", they could cast Boris as the char wallah or something. Hard to know which is making a fool of himself/herself most frequently, Boris or Abbott. Probably Abbott a bit more idiotic, Boris more offensive.
Carl the Llama Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said: At the moment it is worth working for me, but I feel under a Labour government all they do is attack the hard workers. They will have to move the scale of what they consider to be 'rich' to pay for their splurge as businesses and rich individuals will leave the country that is a fact. Just to be clear I do not earn anywhere near that amount but I am sick of a society where people expect something for nothing, you have to work hard or you do not get anything. You are working for a wage and taking home just over half what you earn, that is not fair. I would not bother working I was taxed that much. You seem taken in by this notion that high income = hard work and low income = work-shy sponger. The richest people I've met throughout my life are undoubtedly hard working people but so are the poorest. In my entirely anecdotal experience the laziest members of the workforce are the teenagers who still live at home and are only working because their hard-working, low-income parents made them. Also the family members who work in the businesses set up by the aforementioned richest people I've encountered (and I've worked in multiple businesses where the owner employed his children and their children and partners - In my current role I have to work extra hard picking up after my colleagues for this very reason since they spend such little time actually at work yet I'm on the lowest hourly rate of the entire team afaik, I have begun talks to remedy this mind you). As to your point about socialism: Having spent years working in Belgium I can personally vouch for the benefits of a socialism inspired system which allows workers to seek affordable professional support from catch-all unions (as in there isn't a rail workers union or a health workers union but rather a selection of "mutuels" as they call them which will provide legal assistance to any worker, the only difference is political or religious leaning, so there's a Christian one, a Socialist one, a Neutral one etc.) who will defend them against abuses by their employers, something I'm sad to say I've had to do following a dodgy dismissal. I may well have ended up completely broke and having to move back in with my parents if it weren't for those protections, instead I got a rather nice "shut up and leave us alone" payoff without having to go through lengthy and costly court battles - all it took was one letter from my union asking them to clarify their reasons for sacking me and with it the evidence that I was willing to stand up to them if necessary and had the support to do so. It's not so easy to stand up for your rights over here so it's a good job I have that money to provide a buffer if something ever goes wrong in my current low-income job... Indeed briefly going back to my remark about seeking a better hourly rate - in Belgium I'd be much more confident of a fair outcome with the support available than I am here where I have to fend entirely for myself. Also that penultimate sentence should say "just over half of what you earn above a certain bracket". You keep talking like the 45% is applied to everything earned, please confirm that you actually understand how tax works
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 1 hour ago, MattP said: I would never rule anything out but there is absolutely no sign of this so far, in fact the South West is even stronger than it was 2015 for the Tories when they vote every seat apart from Ben Bradshaw's last time out according to the regional polls.https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/voting-intention-regional-breakdown-apr-24-may-5/ I'll post the breakdown for anyone interested in how the regional polling is going as opposed to across the nation. (changes from 2015 in brackets) - this is very interesting and proves a lot what @Alf Bentley has been saying about how regions are going to be very different from each other come June 9th.. The Labour party is now not just impotent but actually dying in the rural ereas, that's something they will have to address if they are ever to win a majority again. North East voting intention: LAB: 42% (-9) CON: 40% (+15)UKIP: 8% (-9) LDEM: 6% (-1) North West voting intention: CON: 42% (+11) LAB: 42% (-3)UKIP: 8% (-8) LDEM: 6% (+1) Yorkshire and the Humber voting intention: CON: 43% (+10) LAB: 38% (-1) LDEM: 9% (+2)UKIP: 7% (-11) East Midlands voting intention: CON: 54% (+10) LAB: 28% (-4) LDEM: 8% (+2)UKIP: 7% (-9) West Midlands voting intention: CON: 51% (+9) LAB: 28% (-5) LDEM: 9% (+3)UKIP: 9% (-7) East of England voting intention: CON: 56% (+7) LAB: 19% (-3) LDEM: 12% (+4)UKIP: 9% (-7) London voting intention: LAB: 41% (-3) CON: 36% (+1) LDEM: 14% (+6)UKIP: 6% (-2) South East voting intention: CON: 56% (+5) LAB: 19% (+1) LDEM: 15% (+6)UKIP: 6% (-11) South West voting intention: CON: 52% (+5) LAB: 22% (+4) LDEM: 16% (+1)UKIP: 6% (-8) Interesting - and unsurprising - poll results, Matt. On that basis, unless there's a lot of tactical voting, you'd expect the Tories to take a lot of Labour seats right across the North and Midlands. Probably very little change in London/SE/SW, with the Lib Dems only making isolated gains in the SE. That's about a 6% to 12% Lab->Con swing across the North and Midlands. A lot of seats are safer than that, but a lot aren't.... Maybe we'll end up like France, where the Socialists do particularly badly in working-class, former industrial areas. The Front National did well in those areas again in the Presidential elections - areas that used to be represented by the French Communist Party. A bit different over there as the French Socialists never had strong ties to the industrial working-class, unlike Labour in the UK. Mention has rightly been made of UKIP acting as a "gateway drug" for such voters, who now seem to be switching to the Tories.....but there might be another stage in the process if Brexit or the economy become difficult. It could open up a big opportunity for something akin to the Front National or the BNP (or UKIP relaunched further to the Far Right).
The Guvnor Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 2 hours ago, MattP said: She's just become a figure of fun now, no one even criticises her anymore, just something to be laughed at. She started off badly by making a point of the muted response to her 'Hello everybody' and then gave them comedy gold on her exit. Things have obviously got to her recently I really believe she should have a break from politics for her own wellbeing.
leicsmac Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 2 hours ago, KingGTF said: I've just tried looking it up and It's difficult to find much bar a small mention in the economist so maybe I'm wrong but I'm sure it's true, I shall endeavour to look further. Though I did find this on Sweden which is pretty similar. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/dec/18/private-healthcare-lessons-from-sweden It's strange how the Scandinavian countries are seen as these left-wing utopias but it's not really the case and the right should really look at chunks of the model but whilst the Conservatives rule the right in this country, there is no chance. It's interesting. It seems like the Nordic countries are able to combine high personal taxation (and spending that money effectively) with encouraging a lot of private enterprise across the board in a way that works - again, if the quality-of-life surveys are to be believed. I do wish both the left and right in the UK would have a closer look.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 So the Conservatives are trying to make this a closer run afair by the sounds of their manifesto - **** you pensioneers, pay for your own social care it seems!
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 4 hours ago, toddybad said: He's keeping his cool, answering questions well and seems to have a good command of party policy, whatever people think of it. I'm still expecting a Tory landslide, but he's having a much better campaign than I was expecting so far.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Just now, Alf Bentley said: He's keeping his cool, answering questions well and seems to have a good command of party policy, whatever people think of it. I'm still expecting a Tory landslide, but he's having a much better campaign than I was expecting so far. Just a shame about the rest of the plebs around him and the additional sadness of that is there are very capable people within the PLP that are nowhere to be seen.
Jimothy Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: So the Conservatives are trying to make this a closer run afair by the sounds of their manifesto - **** you pensioneers, pay for your own social care it seems! Grey vote is massive in most elections. Stupid idea to stick two fingers up at them. Any other election, against any other Labour Party and this would be political suicide.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 The other big press brief from Theresa May's team is policies surrounding bringing down immigration - there's more weight given to the 10's of thousands target by pushing up the overseas skill levy of £1,000 to £2,000 per annum (a cost a company's pays to the government in return for employing an outside EU worker I understand).
Strokes Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 They certainly don't seem to be wanting to be locked into any spending commitments, but we all know there is a bumpy ride ahead, so I think that's pretty wise.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 8 minutes ago, Facecloth said: Grey vote is massive in most elections. Stupid idea to stick two fingers up at them. Any other election, against any other Labour Party and this would be political suicide. Yes, they're to change the rules so the threshold for state aid is raised... to £100,000 (from just under £25,000)... HOWEVER, property is now included in the higher threshold and where some form of equity release would be employed to allow people to stay in their home, but still fund their own care. Now I must say... this is the sort of thing that many will turn a blind eye to now, only to realise the horror of it in 4/5 years time - especially if house prices suddenly dip, leaving lots of OAP's in negative equity and then dependent on local councils again. Maybe, May's found her poll tax!
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 6 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Yes, they're to change the rules so the threshold for state aid is raised... to £100,000 (from just under £25,000)... HOWEVER, property is now included in the higher threshold and where some form of equity release would be employed to allow people to stay in their home, but still fund their own care. Now I must say... this is the sort of thing that many will turn a blind eye to now, only to realise the horror of it in 4/5 years time - especially if house prices suddenly dip, leaving lots of OAP's in negative equity and then dependent on local councils again. Maybe, May's found her poll tax! https://www.ft.com/content/0b62bba4-3b18-11e7-821a-6027b8a20f23 Property always has been included in the threshold for funding a care home placement - beyond 13 weeks and provided that a spouse or other dependent isn't living in it. So, the higher threshold would benefit a lot of families who have a relative needing residential care - £100,000 disregarded instead of £23,000-odd, even if some still have to sell homes to fund care home places. For lower to middle-income families where a parent owns their home or has other capital, that's a better deal than now - and possibly better than Cameron's broken promise of a £72,000 absolute limit on care payments. Of course, it won't help someone richer who's unlucky enough to develop a very long-term condition: e.g. someone with a £1m house who has to spend years in a care home will pay hundreds of thousands, not just £72k.....but then that £72k promise was broken immediately after the 2015 election anyway! The real sting might be including property when calculating the payment of care provided to people who stay in their own homes. That's generally much, much cheaper than a care home (unless you have a full-time live-in care worker)......but what if you own your home but have a low income and little other capital? That's a position that a lot of pensioners will be in - and that really could hit hard, though the devil will be in the detail. They're planning to means-test the winter fuel allowance, too, to save some cash. In tough times, there's a case for that - so long as it doesn't discourage vulnerable people from getting the cash and doesn't create red tape. It's a sign of confidence of victory - and lack of confidence in our economic future - that the Tories are prepared to risk stuff like this, tax rises and ditching the triple lock on pensions.
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Tory manifesto: more elderly people will have to pay for own social care https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/theresa-may-conservative-tory-policy-older-people-pay-for-social-care This isn't more elderly people. This is saying anybody that owns a home will lose significant equity in it. This could be massive for Labour...
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Blimey. You can tell one party is actually preparing to rule and one is hoping to grab power on a litany of bribes. I have some hope this Tory government might be one that is going to finally take the financial state of the country seriously.
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 @Alf Bentley True about the care home position Alf, but if you consider habits in this area - most elderly people prefer to stay in their own home until it's physically impossible to live there out of principle more than anything. That can mean there's quite a period where care is required at home, where the home was protected as an asset... and people like the feeling of passing on an actual asset, bricks and mortar, rather than just cash or an insurance pay out. Now I wonder if this could be a policy to encourage a change of behaviour and get more people moving into care homes earlier, because I would guess the overall cost of covering care in a residential home would be much cheaper for councils than putting on personal care at home* (plus, I'm sure there's plenty of Conservative board interests in private care homes). It may also be a round the back way to get a few more houses on the market? *Obviously the cost of a care home on an individual basis would be huge, but if you consider providing the cost of 20/25 in a care home compared to the cost of provide the same in their own homes - I expect synergies can be found via te care home route,
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 12 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tory manifesto: more elderly people will have to pay for own social care https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/may/17/theresa-may-conservative-tory-policy-older-people-pay-for-social-care This isn't more elderly people. This is saying anybody that owns a home will lose significant equity in it. This could be massive for Labour... Quick tear up the costings and whack another 50 billion in social care. Paid for by a bankers bonus corporation 80k special flithy rich special capital share tax.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.