Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Just now, MattP said: 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. You think it's better to take the equity from inheretences at the low end (after raising inheretence tax at the high end) than stick a few % on income tax on anything over £80k?
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 5 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: @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, Care homes are going under quite quickly these days so that doesn't add up https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2016/oct/11/elderly-and-disabled-people-put-at-risk-by-care-homes-closures
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 3 minutes ago, toddybad said: You think it's better to take the equity from inheretences at the low end (after raising inheretence tax at the high end) than stick a few % on income tax on anything over £80k? I'm pissed, just logged on for a quick look. I'm amazed at what I'm reading though, at least no one can accuse the Tories of trying to buy pensioners votes thus time.
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: I'm pissed, just logged on for a quick look. I'm amazed at what I'm reading though, at least no one can accuse the Tories of trying to buy pensioners votes thus time. ? fair enough ? Im stunned. Its like they want it to be close!
Rincewind Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 I dont think May can be accused trying to buy the disabled nurses teachers low part time workers and the vulnerable votes.
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: ? fair enough ? Im stunned. Its like they want it to be close! I don't think they are bothered. Labour aren't actually even trying to win, just solidify Corbyn. They'll be celebrating if MP's like Bradshaw and Woodcock lose to the Tories. The Conservatives could halve the state pension tomorrow and still win a majority. Labour can do what they want but fact is a vote for them still means making people like Semtex John Chancellor and putting Diane Abbott in charge of MI5 - they could stand in 1997 and lose.
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 Just now, Rincewind said: I dont think May can be accused trying to buy the disabled nurses teachers kow part time workers and the vulnerable votes. Kinda hard to imagine who it is that will be voting for her isn't it?
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 1 minute ago, MattP said: I don't think they are bothered. Labour aren't actually even trying to win, just solidify Corbyn. They'll be celebrating if MP's like Bradshaw and Woodcock lose to the Tories. The Conservatives could halve the state pension tomorrow and still win a majority. Labour can do what they want but fact is a vote for them still means making people like Semtex John Chancellor and putting Diane Abbott in charge of MI5 - they could stand in 1997 and lose. I don't doubt you're right about the result but i think it's a shame perception of personalities trumps actions and policies. Let's be honest, even you've let on that some of what labour wants to do is actually quite positive policy wise - even if you can't get passed the numbers. It seems to me that fear is winning over hope in this election. Don't get me wrong, diane abbott is an embarrassment but then Bojo as foreign secretary is pretty bloody embarrassing.
Rincewind Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 The result was decided the day after she announced the GE. Place the word 'unelectable' enough times into people's minds and they will come to believe it and be as apathetic as they have been in recent years. The number of people going to see Corbyn compared to those going to see May wont make a difference according to the media. It was funny though when that woman had a go at her. May must have strayed off the designated route set out for her
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: I don't doubt you're right about the result but i think it's a shame perception of personalities trumps actions and policies. Let's be honest, even you've let on that some of what labour wants to do is actually quite positive policy wise - even if you can't get passed the numbers. It seems to me that fear is winning over hope in this election. Don't get me wrong, diane abbott is an embarrassment but then Bojo as foreign secretary is pretty bloody embarrassing. When you have done the things some of the Labour front bench have done you can't expect some people to just forget. Some Labour policy is good, some is not for one minute realistic though, I'm not going to give too much credit for a manifesto written from a major party to deal with a defeat and the bloodbath afterwards rather than one of serious potential government. Vast spending relying on the most mobile taxpayer is silly, random things like the water industry nationalisation being added to the manifesto at the last minute despite the Chancellor not be able to give the correct deficit figure hours before is a little bit of a joke, not to mention then not being able to even give vague idea of how much it will cost later in the day. This approach deprives the wider electorate of a serious choice and weakens British democracy, for that alone the people who have done this to the party should be ashamed.
Guest MattP Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 6 minutes ago, Rincewind said: The number of people going to see Corbyn compared to those going to see May wont make a difference according to the media. He had been pulling in big crowds since he started campaigning and Labour keep losing in elections. Why would the media think it's going to make a difference now? Preaching to 2,000 people on the streets of Liverpool will turn a safe Labour seat into a safe Labour seat. Is he going to rally and reach out to swing voters in Loughborough or Nuneaton? Two seats he needs to win? Of course he isn't.
Guest Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 8 minutes ago, MattP said: He had been pulling in big crowds since he started campaigning and Labour keep losing in elections. Why would the media think it's going to make a difference now? Preaching to 2,000 people on the streets of Liverpool will turn a safe Labour seat into a safe Labour seat. Is he going to rally and reach out to swing voters in Loughborough or Nuneaton? Two seats he needs to win? Of course he isn't. His route has been a strange one. Safe labour seats or safe tory seats. I do wonder what would have happened if his own party had just let him have a go from the start and hadn't poisoned all talk around him.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 51 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: @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, Some good points there. I appreciate that this could have a major adverse impact on people receiving care at home. That's why I said that could be "the real sting" - especially for pensioners who own their home but have no savings and a low income (and there are a lot of them). The devil will be in the detail, though - and care at home is quite cheap if you're only getting 1-2 half-hour visits per day: could be just £100-£200 per month, compared to at least £30,000-£40,000 per year in a care home (less if the council is paying). Of course, even £100 per month will be a lot to some - and some people might need 3 or 4 hours care daily to be able to stay at home......that might push a lot more people towards care homes for financial reasons, as you suggest. That might help the struggling care home industry - and the housing market, as you say. I'm sure they've taken these issues into account. I'm not sure how the funding would work out for councils, if more people went into care homes earlier. At first, they'd presumably be better off as the people would be self-funding from their own assets.....but then, once they were down to £100k (£23k now) the council would have to be shelling out for full-time care home costs, instead of for maybe a couple of hours per day at home - which would cost the councils a lot more. I had to arrange care for my Dad during his last 2 years. During his second-last year, he got a couple of care visits per day at home - and that cost about £500 per month, I think. During his final year, he was no longer safe to be on his own. If he'd gone into a care home, it would have cost upwards of £3000 per month (self-funded). He and we wanted him to stay at home if possible but the council didn't have any full-time live-in carers. I ended up signing a private contract for a live-in carer - who was absolutely brilliant, and didn't cost much more than a care home place (£850 per week - and this was in London). So, care homes aren't such a cheap option for councils, I don't think.
Alf Bentley Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 45 minutes ago, toddybad said: Kinda hard to imagine who it is that will be voting for her isn't it? The British people are a bunch of masochists. As they showed with Thatcher, they like nothing better than a harsh dominatrix figure giving them a bloody good thrashing. "If it isn't hurting, it isn't working!", as the old Tory slogan said. "Go on, give me some more of your strong, stable leadership! Whip me again and give all my money to a tax-avoiding global corporation!"
Rincewind Posted 17 May 2017 Posted 17 May 2017 14 minutes ago, toddybad said: His route has been a strange one. Safe labour seats or safe tory seats. I do wonder what would have happened if his own party had just let him have a go from the start and hadn't poisoned all talk around him. He has been working actually ever since being elected as leader TWICE. He's been up and down the country talking to people. He's prevented quite a number of bills being paqssed. It's just that there has been less media interest in that side of him. He was being questioned by a news reporter who said that people like Labour policies but not the leader. After a pause to smile he said being a good leader was not about shouting at others but listening to people and that is what he had been doing since being leader
Guest Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 3 minutes ago, Rincewind said: He has been working actually ever since being elected as leader TWICE. He's been up and down the country talking to people. He's prevented quite a number of bills being paqssed. It's just that there has been less media interest in that side of him. He was being questioned by a news reporter who said that people like Labour policies but not the leader. After a pause to smile he said being a good leader was not about shouting at others but listening to people and that is what he had been doing since being leader Oh I know. I like the job he's done in the most part. Hard to believe from my comments in this thread but I actually (mistakenly) voted Tory in 2010. That won't be happening again. Despite his work, however, the media have only picked up on the chaos and bad blood within the party over the last couple of years and that has poisoned the public's view of him. The Tories don't really need to attack Corbyn as Labour MPs themselves did that. I think the return of a left/right choice might be a good thing for British politics.
Guest Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 We all know that the written media is biased - it's allowed to be - but I wish they'd be honest about it. Th Sun have discussed the Tory manifesto and declared that May has lurched to the left to help ordinary people and is becoming known as a 'red Tory'. W.T.F...!?! She's further to the right that Thatcher by some way!
Guest Kopfkino Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 6 minutes ago, toddybad said: We all know that the written media is biased - it's allowed to be - but I wish they'd be honest about it. Th Sun have discussed the Tory manifesto and declared that May has lurched to the left to help ordinary people and is becoming known as a 'red Tory'. W.T.F...!?! She's further to the right that Thatcher by some way! Is she? Do share how so I can find a reason to vote for her
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 5 hours ago, toddybad said: We all know that the written media is biased - it's allowed to be - but I wish they'd be honest about it. Th Sun have discussed the Tory manifesto and declared that May has lurched to the left to help ordinary people and is becoming known as a 'red Tory'. W.T.F...!?! She's further to the right that Thatcher by some way! Indeed, I'm reasonably suprised at the headlines of quite a few - the Mail being the worst. Given May herself is trailing this manifesto as 'tough decisions' trying to headline the ideas within as positivly brilliant is rather disingenuous.
Guest Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 12 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said: Indeed, I'm reasonably suprised at the headlines of quite a few - the Mail being the worst. Given May herself is trailing this manifesto as 'tough decisions' trying to headline the ideas within as positivly brilliant is rather disingenuous. She's getting a pasting in the comments section though ?
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 9 minutes ago, toddybad said: She's getting a pasting in the comments section though ? I did go and have a quick look and your correct... I didn't think people would fall for the headline and they're not, but they're are somevquite horrible people in the comments "complaining that those that haven't saved get care paid for by the state" not considering those may not have ever been in a position to save the amounts required to have a choice about the quality of care they receieve.
Alf Bentley Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 A good concise analysis of the Tory manifesto policy on the funding of care: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39957879
Guest Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 Tory social care plans will leave people helpless, says former adviser https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/18/tory-social-care-plan-example-market-failure-andrew-dilnot
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 18 May 2017 Posted 18 May 2017 It must be amazing to know that you can rely on a voting demographic so much that you can fvck them over and not lose a single vote.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.