[Oldmanmatt]

BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.

I agree with your criticisms of the Tory policy but the above quote is rubbish I'm afraid Stu. The Labour policy is, "We know it's a bit problem, we have no idea how to sort it without proposing a policy that will won't go down well with the voters so we'll brush it under the carpet by proposing an "unspecified tax" and whinge about the Tories' policy". It's no better than the Tory policy as they haven't got one.

That sounds more accurate.


Let's face it, it's going to be and already is; a huge problem.
What was it Daltrey sang?

Oh yeah. I hope I die before I get old.

[petejh]

What do you mean by unfair?

In one sense it's a grotesquely unfair policy as it breaks the idea of the state providing social insurance. The cost will be born mostly by those unlucky enough to get long-lasting degenerative diseases, and not shared across all of society. If you like this policy, consider if you would, for example, be happy to make victims of road accidents use their house equity to cover their NHS care?

It's reasonably progressive, if that's what you mean by fair.

The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.

BTW - Labour's manifesto talks about funding end-of-life care through an unspecified tax on "wealth", which could be inheritance tax or something else. Since the exact tax, and level of taxation isn't specified it's hard to know if it would be better, but at least it doesn't line the pockets of financiers at the expense of wee Doris having to lose her house.

Your first point about 'breaking the idea of state providing social insurance' isn't accurate Stu - social care isn't fully funded by the state, it isn't like the NHS. The current rules say you're eligible to pay for your care if you have over £23,250 in savings and you could have to pay the full cost of care. The current rules seem to me far less equitable than the new policy.

Your second point about car crashes isn't a relevant comparison. Virtually every one of us is at risk of suffering in a traffic accident. Not every one of us is at risk of experiencing the sequence of events which leads to needing social care, i.e. get old enough - get ill enough - remain ill enough for long enough. A great many of us won't make it to that point hence social care isn't a universal 'risk' like traffic accidents.

Your point about equity release companies presumes without much evidence.

Your point about the Labour manifesto also starts from a point of presuming - that they have 'a better idea'. But there isn't much evidence this is true, because Labour won't tell us what their idea is. Burnham might have suggested an inheritance tax rise. But Burnham didn't get elected Labour leader and inheritance tax to pay for social care isn't Labour's stated policy .

Apart from that, yeah I agree 

[abarro81]

So we all agree that inheritance tax increases (and, from the sounds of it, loophole closures) would be the best way to fund this... but no-one is offering this. So I'm still back to where I started on being surprised by how many left-wingers I see attacking the policy and thinking that whilst it ain't great it's not actually that bad and quite interesting.

Your second point about car crashes isn't a relevant comparison. Virtually every one of us is at risk of suffering in a traffic accident. Not every one of us is at risk of experiencing the sequence of events which leads to needing social care, i.e. get old enough - get ill enough - remain ill enough for long enough. A great many of us won't make it to that point hence social care isn't a universal 'risk' like traffic accidents.

Although on the whole I agree with galpinos regarding Stu's post, I don't get how you think it's not a relevant comparison. It seems to me that we all are at risk of needing social care in almost exactly the same way as being at risk of getting hit by a car. I think you're saying that because many of us will die before we get to needing social care it's different from a car crash... I understand where you're coming from, but that strikes me as being a little like saying that many of us will die before getting hit by a car so we don't need the NHS to cover treatment for that (perhaps a disease with an age related risk factor like cancer would make a better comparison though).

[Stu Littlefair]

A lot to address in those last few posts.

Pete - as you yourself pointed out the task is to compare potential solutions to each other, not to the status quo. No-one thinks the status quo is good, and I agree the Tory proposal is better, but that's not saying much.

Everyone suggested the labour party haven't offered a solution, or it's too vague. That's just wrong. From page 71 onwards the of the manifesto:

Our first urgent task will be to address the immediate funding crisis. We will increase the social care budgets by a further £8 billion over the lifetime of the next Parliament

Labour will lay the foundations of a National Care Service for England.

This National Care Service will...

place a maximum limit on lifetime personal contributions to care costs, raise the asset threshold below which people are entitled to state support, and provide free end of life care.

It will be funded by

options including wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy.

That's what the Tory proposal should be compared to. Galpinos' characterisation seems to be completely at odds with the above. I'd rather they'd put figures on the asset threshold, but it's still a pretty clear policy. For me the Tory alternative is crueller, more of a lottery as to who pays and, thanks to the unspecified cap, not much more concrete either.

Pete - Barrows has dealt with the car crash analogy quite well, so I won't go into that.

[petejh]

Although on the whole I agree with galpinos regarding Stu's post, I don't get how you think it's not a relevant comparison. It seems to me that we all are at risk of needing social care in almost exactly the same way as being at risk of getting hit by a car. I think you're saying that because many of us will die before we get to needing social care it's different from a car crash... I understand where you're coming from, but that strikes me as being a little like saying that many of us will die before getting hit by a car so we don't need the NHS to cover treatment for that (perhaps a disease with an age related risk factor like cancer would make a better comparison though).

That's a fair point, but I'd say 'risk of requiring social care' applies to a smaller band of the population than 'risk of needing the NHS (car crash or anything else)'. Which is reflected in the different way each is treated i.e. self-funded versus state funded.

Also, the small band of population at risk of 'requiring social care' also happen to be at the end of their lives. And hence it could be (and is being) argued have less need of their wealth than the population band at risk of 'needing the NHS'.

[Stu Littlefair]

It doesn't matter how small the number affected is, the principle is the same. In many ways the smaller the better. If a very few people face a very large expense, society can cover this at negligible cost. In this case though, I think the estimates are that 1/10 of us will face costs greater than £100k. Much more likely than a car crash.

And indeed, those about to die have less use for their wealth. Which is why there is cross-party consensus that this should come from some sort of contribution from taxation on wealth. I just think the Tory proposal is not the best way of doing it.

To be fair though, you've got to give May some credit for using her lack of opposition as an excuse to lay out unpleasant solutions to politically difficult problems. I find the Tory manifesto odd in this respect. You've got tough stuff like the 'dementia tax' in it, which for all my criticisms above is a laudable attempt to fix a tough problem. On the other hand, there's also the repeat of the immigration 'ambition', which (depending on whether you think they really mean it or not) is either a £6 billion/yr unfunded pledge, or a bare-faced lie that they're repeating for the third election running

[creedence]

The real reason I don't like it the policy is that, in order to make it work, there will have to be a whole new financial market created whereby firms offer special equity release schemes to pay for end-of-life care. And presumably cream off a healthy profit whilst doing so. I find that pretty offensive.

Interestingly enough, Legal and General have a 29% market share of the equity release market.

Capital Group own 8% of Legal and General's shares.

One of the executives of Capital Group is none other than Philip May...

[petejh]

Probably a bare-face lie to scoop up ukipers.

It doesn't matter how small the number affected is, the principle is the same. In many ways the smaller the better. If a very few people face a very large expense, society can cover this at negligible cost. In this case though, I think the estimates are that 1/10 of us will face costs greater than £100k. Much more likely than a car crash.

Context is important - where does that 1/10 figure sit in context of how many will require the NHS in their lifetime - my complete guess is 9/10 will require the NHS.

And, what does the '1 in 10th person' cost the NHS compared to the 1/10 of us costing the care service.

And is that 1/10 of those left alive at age.. what? 80? 75? 90?

Know that and you have a foundation for making a sensible plan.

[jfdm]

So what's your take away from that article? I don't see glaring unfairness.
Bottom line - everyone keeps £100k of their housing wealth and pays for care...

I've replied Pete but no answer?
To add a little more to debate, saying this is a left leaning policy - death tax lottery, Tory policy seems to me to place all risk and responsibility on the individual. Labour want greater collective responsibility.

In the end I would think that welfare reform is the last thing on most people's mind when voting. NHS, Brexit, economy, education will probably be at the forefront of thinking. Brexit is the single biggest obstacle out there, a year down the line we are none the wiser.

It is easy to score points, highlight aspects of policy that are weak or you simply dislike. But that's politics.

The idea of trust and transparency plays a part to some degree, the Tories have 7 years to turn things around, have they, I'd say no.

In terms of tax and spend, labour seem a safer long term bet.
The facts seem to speak for themselves.
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/13/the-conservatives-have-been-the-biggest-borrowers-over-the-last-70-years/

[i.munro]

On the other hand, there's also the repeat of the immigration 'ambition', which (depending on whether you think they really mean it or not) is either a £6 billion/yr unfunded pledge, or a bare-faced lie that they're repeating for the third election running

This might be an easy "win" for them.  From what I can see around me every EU citizen  & quite a lot of others are leaving the UK just as fast as they can. I suspect whoever forms  the next govt may have to start looking for ways to enourage immigration.

[jfdm]

Oh dear, the knives were out, but have been put away for a bit, probably.
Maybe next time the big guns will be rolled out.
Strong and stable read this. 
https://order-order.com/2016/07/02/read-full-article-pulled-telegraph-pressure-may-campaign/
The tinternet never forgets.

[jfdm]

Up for some karaoke later, the chorus is quite catchy.
Unsurprisingly it's number 10 in iTunes chart.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HxN1STgQXW8&feature=youtu.be

[Oldmanmatt]

I've got to say, I agree with Pete here.
I'm greatly amused by what I see as a Tory mis-step that will offend their base greatly. However, I don't see it as unfair.

I don't think it will work. I assume there must be numerous ways of passing on the property to whoever you wish, before this kicks in?
I don't know, can you sell your house to your children for a Quid? There can't be any law saying you must charge "market value" is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I realised I was looking at this the wrong way, considering only the home owner and not their heirs.

Because, actually, there's this too:

[tomtom]

Well - after watching the leaders tonight - I conclude that Theresa May is fucking boring, and I was impressed with Jeremy Corbyn.

I say that fully appreciating all I have said about him on here before. I'm still not sure whether Poxman gave one more of a hard time than the other...

My other highlight was the one man Theresa May standing ovation at the end :D
Dick.

[danm]

What I took from watching that is that even if you don't agree with what Corbyn is saying, he believes in it and it comes from the heart. God help us if May wins, imagine that shambles up against Merkel when negotiating Brexit - she'll get eviscerated.

[Falling Down]

I thought Corbin did well too.  May had very little to say at all really.

[jfdm]

What I got from the debate last night was
1. Breakfast means Breakfast. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day. A good full English breakfast is good for our nhs, economy, police etc. However May is happy to walk away from a continental breakfast. No deal is better than a bad breakfast. This doesn't make sense why go hungry.

2. Thatcher shook hands with many dictators, queen shook hand with Jimmy sav, tb lair shook hands with gadaffi/bush, may shook hands of Saudis/trump, Corbyn shook hands with ira 20/30 yrs ago. So what.

3. Paxo's lost his marbles, his dementia tax bill will be big.

4. As tomtom states there were a couple of dicks in the audience, the guy standing up on his own at the end clapping may, the former lab voter/business man who didn't want to pay a bit extra corporation tax, minimum wage, what a tw*t.

[jfdm]

Does anybody know anything about the Naylor Report - May bigged it up in the Andrew interview.Think that I need to read a few of these reports more closely.
Anybody interested in the future of the NHS needs to have eyes on this.

Turns out it's simply the privatisation of the NHS, by massive US health company.
2for1 land/asset grab no problem. If you have some loose change.
Unfucking believable, its like doing a big shop on a slightly bigger scale.
This sounds pretty bad if true, first they came for the school fields, now the hospitals.

[Oldmanmatt]

Yep, and G4S are to take over crime investigation from most police forces. Gives the term "Private Detective" a whole new meaning...
This includes arrests and detention as I understand. I'll find a link.
Edit:
There you go, couldn't remember which paper I'd read it in.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/mar/02/police-privatisation-security-firms-crime

I find this bloody scary, to be frank.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dave]

I'm sure it'll be every bit as successful* as the privatisation of the buses and trains was.






*By successful of course I mean profitable.

[jfdm]

If Heineken did interviews they'd probably be like this

David Davies couldn't negotiate himself out of a cardboard box.
Where is May, busy reading a Dummies guide to negotiations.

[Oldmanmatt]

Where is May, busy reading a Dummies guide to negotiations.

The first rule of Prime Ministers club is, you don't talk about Prime Ministers club...

Loving the "Putting the "N" into "Cuts"" posters that are being pasted over Con. banners around the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jfdm]

I like Barry a lot, I think it is because of the way he quietly goes about his work.
About 4 minutes into this interview we are starting to get somewhere with Breakfast means Breakfast. 6.8p to be precise, how many cornflakes is that.

[Nigel]

Relatively little discussion on here for a while, however now it seems there is a possibility things may be more interesting than first thought. Labour are closing in the polls, and the momentum seems to be with Corbyn (if you’ll pardon the pun). I’ve never trusted the polls so obviously there will still be a sweeping Tory majority for our lord and saviour Theresa May but hey I’m a natural optimist so, just taking the contrary view for a bit….two questions:

1.   What do people think will happen if the Conservatives win a majority that is not “vastly” different to the one they have at the minute?
2.   What do people think will happen if we end up with a hung parliament?

Both broad questions – i.e. who will govern and how, what will happen to leaders, what will happen RE Brexit? I’m really not informed on this at all! Its nice to dream innit 

[Lurker]

The party leader who draws the short straw has to become one of the legs of May's Power Stance™ to prop her up.