there's an election

[smat]

There's a (not that good tbh) episode of the New Statesman where Alan B'Stard MP is put in charge of the Conservatives' election campaign. He promises all Conservative voters free lottery tickets and puts Page 3 models in the adverts and they shoot up in the polls.

Only it turns out HQ are furious because they wanted to lose, and expected B'Stard to run a horrendous campaign and haemorrhage voters. They've called the snap election because they've discovered the North Sea oil is about to run out, which will trigger a huge depression. They want to get out of power and let Labour take the blame for it.

Can anyone think of any cataclysmic hits to the economy in the pipeline? Something Theresa May herself might have triggered?

To put it in words Jeff Stelling might use, "does anyone WANT to win this election??"

 

[Alty]

I'm beginning to wonder whether complacency and/or the shorter than usual timetable (self-imposed since they chose a snap election) has caused them to neglect certain basics, like focus grouping the bejesus out of their big ideas before announcing them.

It's piss poor.

I think the issue is probably that Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy have written the entire manifesto based on their ideas without consulting anyone.

What's weird here is the policy was obviously going to be unpopular, but I thought they were pressing ahead because it genuinely would be a partial solution to a growing problem in the knowledge Labour are not strong at the minute. But not having the courage to stick with it is pathetic.

 

[Abertawe]

Seen the size of them bags under May's eyes. She's so shit she can't even sleep.

 

[BeesKnees]

I think the issue is probably that Fiona Hill and Nick Timothy have written the entire manifesto based on their ideas without consulting anyone.

What's weird here is the policy was obviously going to be unpopular, but I thought they were pressing ahead because it genuinely would be a partial solution to a growing problem in the knowledge Labour are not strong at the minute. But not having the courage to stick with it is pathetic.

Nick and Fiona are definitely the brains of the maybot operation. Grammar schools and this one are definitely out of Timothy's book.

She has relied on them to bully her way to the top and now she has been exposed.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

What's weird here is the policy was obviously going to be unpopular, but I thought they were pressing ahead because it genuinely would be a partial solution to a growing problem in the knowledge Labour are not strong at the minute. But not having the courage to stick with it is pathetic.

It’s an issue that most governments hoof into the tall grass, which is one reason why it’s now at crisis point. Therefore, the willingness to propose something bold, knowing it will be controversial, is admirable.

And IMO the basic idea isn’t THAT bad.

What was proposed originally (not sure where they are with it now!) would actually be a significant improvement for people who require care in a nursing home. At the moment people are expected to self-fund that if they have assets greater than approx. £23,000, and the value of their home is usually included. For those people, then, the £100,000 threshold is obviously better.

The tricky part relates to people receiving social care in their own home (a lot more common than the nursing home scenario described above). Currently the same £23,000 threshold applies, but the value of a person’s home isn’t taken into account. The only assets calculated are the person’s savings and income.

Currently, then, an 80-year-old who lives in a £500,000 property and has £5,000 in the bank wouldn’t have to self-fund their outreach social care. Since property values aren’t included, the value of their assets would be below £23,000. But an 80-year-old who lives in a £70,000 property and has £30,000 in the bank would have to pay something. At the very least they’d have to deplete about £7,000 of their savings to get under that £23,000 barrier.

I’ve simplified a bit (e.g. I’ve ignored pension income, which in some cases can be considerable) but not, I hope, at the expense of the salient point: the existing arrangement is hugely advantageous to pensioners who live in expensive property. In the above example, the first 80-year-old pays less towards their social care despite their overall estate being five times more valuable.

I think the policy is, among other things, an attempt to deal with that unfairness. ‘The left’ will never get on board with it because, as Ian is good enough to admit, they consider any attempt to means test welfare a complete anathema. The idea is definitely ‘sellable’ to conservatives, though. Conservative thinking often attaches great value to the idea of self-sufficiency. Having a welfare state is sensible, but it’s there as a back-up, as a credible Plan B. Individuals and families should first try to solve their own problems. The welfare state is there for when they can’t.

If that seems intuitively right to you (as it does to me), then it’s completely counterintuitive to think other taxpayers should pay when one’s elderly relatives require social care. The idea of ‘the state’ (i.e. other taxpayers like you, Ian, Smat et. al) footing the bill and me cheerfully inheriting property worth £0.5m just seems wrong. The family is quite able to meet the costs. Asking complete strangers to share the burden would be taking the piss.

But I think the fact that I’m now on my 9th paragraph is indicative of the main problem for the Tories. It’s not the worst idea in the world. In some respects it’s a significant improvement on what we have now. But what’s good about it can’t be expressed concisely. It can’t be reduced to a soundbite. It can’t be reduced to a tweet. It can’t be explained in 15 seconds to a worried pensioner on the doorstep. Opposing it, however, is a piece of piss. Look at how “dementia tax” has stuck.

If you’re going to put out something like this, you have to be thoroughly prepared to defend it. Not just willing, but actually prepared for all the obvious counterarguments and misrepresentations. It’s obvious that the Tories weren’t. And, you're right, that’s what’s most damaging.

 

[Aber gas]

Tories out campaigning in Manchester yesterday in a big fuck you to the respectful cessation of hostilities. Absolutely disgusted tbqpfh ( but not surprised)

 

[Aber gas]

On the subject of using a horrific tragedy for political gains the Sun can fuck off. Don't be expecting many sales in Manchester. Fucking vultures.

 

[GodsGift]

I'm not one to defend The S*n but their front page would have been sent before the tragedy happened, wouldn't it?

 

[Veggie Legs]

It’s an issue that most governments hoof into the tall grass, which is one reason why it’s now at crisis point. Therefore, the willingness to propose something bold, knowing it will be controversial, is admirable.

And IMO the basic idea isn’t THAT bad.

I pretty much agree with this, and I can't say that I agree with much in the Conservative manifesto*. This is a pretty radical solution but it's a problem that needs one. Personally I think an increase in inheritance tax would be a better and fairer way to fund social care, but the bottom line of this proposal is that people only have to pay if they can afford to.



*I don't think the idea of getting rid of universal free school meals is that bad either, yet these are the two policies people seem most pissed off about. Just goes to show how emotive politics is, I suppose.

 

[Aber gas]

Police federation ( well known leftist organisation ) sticking the boot into May now. Tough on terrorism my hairy arse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/only-need-soldiers-streets-because-10493131

 

[BeesKnees]

Police federation ( well known leftist organisation ) sticking the boot into May now. Tough on terrorism my hairy arse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/only-need-soldiers-streets-because-10493131

There is no doubt in my mind that this is true. You only have to look at the situation after 7/7 . Multiple bombs detonated across London, known terrorists on the run and unknown number of accomplices. Yet no need for the army.

Only difference is a loss of 20,000 police officers and 35,000 police staff.

 

[Aber gas]

The Tories backtrack on their school breakfast plan after deciding feeding kids is a bad idea.
So no lunches or breakfasts for your children. Cynically buried too.
Vultures.

 

[Ian_Wrexham]

Police federation ( well known leftist organisation ) sticking the boot into May now. Tough on terrorism my hairy arse.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/only-need-soldiers-streets-because-10493131

There's no need for martial law anyway.

Remember when leftists used to oppose the security state rather than cheerlead for it for the sake of short-term political opportunism?

Just kidding we've always been trash.

Sections of this reply have been redacted for security reasons.

 

[Captain Scumbag]

This is a pretty radical solution but it's a problem that needs one. Personally I think an increase in inheritance tax would be a better and fairer way to fund social care, but the bottom line of this proposal is that people only have to pay if they can afford to.

While I have no principled objection to ideas that link social care funding to inheritance (I’m fairly sanguine about inheritance tax, especially for a Tory), I do have reservations about how it will work in practice. Given these, my preferred solution is to make social care for the elderly part of the NHS’s purview and fund it by increasing NIC rates for the better off.

No one knows whether they’ll need complex and expensive social care in their dotage. Each of us will experience physical and/or mental deterioration if we reach an advanced age, but the severity of the effects will vary enormously from one person to the next. We don’t know how debilitating the effects will be. We don’t know how long they’ll last. There’s also degree of randomness to the whole thing. A healthy lifestyle is obviously a good thing in itself, but to our knowledge it’s no guarantee against Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease, arthritis, etc. A lot it comes down to being lucky in the genetic lottery.

We’re all aware of a similar vulnerability when it comes to ‘random’ health problems that aren’t associated with old age. Healthy women get breast cancer. Small children get leukaemia. Babies are born prematurely. People suffer life-threatening injuries in car accidents caused by someone else. And so on. This shared sense of vulnerability is what makes the central idea of the NHS so popular. None of us know what healthcare we’re going to need, so let’s pool resources and share the risk.

It makes intuitive sense to expand this idea to include things like dementia. The social care / health care distinction that’s implicit in so much modern policy debate seems quite strange and arbitrary when applied to the elderly. If someone has Alzheimer’s and requires 24/7 care in a nursing home, then how is that not a health problem? The person has a degenerative brain disease.

Currently the average annual salary in the UK is about £27,000. NICs for the employee are 8.4% of that gross salary. The employer pays about 9.6%. The basic idea at present is the rate goes down for the employee as their salary increases, but slightly increases for their employer. If the gross salary is £100,000, the employee pays 5.3% and the employer pays 12.6%. A Premier League footballer earning £5m per year pays about 2% of their gross salary while the club pays about 13.8%.

There is definitely scope for bumping those up, especially on the employee side. My salary isn’t significantly above the national average but I'd happily pay more. Wayne Rooney and Paul Pogba won't starve if we bump their rates up a few percent. Worth a try, no?

 

[Aber gas]

There's no need for martial law anyway.

Remember when leftists used to oppose the security state rather than cheerlead for it for the sake of short-term political opportunism?

Just kidding we've always been trash.

Sections of this reply have been redacted for security reasons.

I'm not above some hypocritical, opportunistic electioneering when needed. Especially when grief is being weaponised. Fuck 'em.

 

[Veggie Legs]

While I have no principled objection to ideas that link social care funding to inheritance (I’m fairly sanguine about inheritance tax, especially for a Tory), I do have reservations about how it will work in practice. Given these, my preferred solution is to make social care for the elderly part of the NHS’s purview and fund it by increasing NIC rates for the better off.

No one knows whether they’ll need complex and expensive social care in their dotage. Each of us will experience physical and/or mental deterioration if we reach an advanced age, but the severity of the effects will vary enormously from one person to the next. We don’t know how debilitating the effects will be. We don’t know how long they’ll last. There’s also degree of randomness to the whole thing. A healthy lifestyle is obviously a good thing in itself, but to our knowledge it’s no guarantee against Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, motor neurone disease, arthritis, etc. A lot it comes down to being lucky in the genetic lottery.

We’re all aware of a similar vulnerability when it comes to ‘random’ health problems that aren’t associated with old age. Healthy women get breast cancer. Small children get leukaemia. Babies are born prematurely. People suffer life-threatening injuries in car accidents caused by someone else. And so on. This shared sense of vulnerability is what makes the central idea of the NHS so popular. None of us know what healthcare we’re going to need, so let’s pool resources and share the risk.

It makes intuitive sense to expand this idea to include things like dementia. The social care / health care distinction that’s implicit in so much modern policy debate seems quite strange and arbitrary when applied to the elderly. If someone has Alzheimer’s and requires 24/7 care in a nursing home, then how is that not a health problem? The person has a degenerative brain disease.

Currently the average annual salary in the UK is about £27,000. NICs for the employee are 8.4% of that gross salary. The employer pays about 9.6%. The basic idea at present is the rate goes down for the employee as their salary increases, but slightly increases for their employer. If the gross salary is £100,000, the employee pays 5.3% and the employer pays 12.6%. A Premier League footballer earning £5m per year pays about 2% of their gross salary while the club pays about 13.8%.

There is definitely scope for bumping those up, especially on the employee side. My salary isn’t significantly above the national average but I'd happily pay more. Wayne Rooney and Paul Pogba won't starve if we bump their rates up a few percent. Worth a try, no?

That sounds fine to me too. I suggested inheritance tax as it's closer to what's being proposed (and I'm in favour of increasing it anyway), but essentially I'd be happy with any tax increases to fund care for elderly people (or anyone else). Completely agree that the distinction between health care and social care is not very meaningful or helpful too.

 

[BeesKnees]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

 

[Aber gas]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

That's the fucking tipping point. Boom

 

[JaseTheVillain]

Surely we aren't going to do this!?

 

[Aber gas]

Surely we aren't going to do this!?

Dunno bro. I've been told that the Tories are winning everywhere.

 

[Jockney]

When were those polls taken?

Shy Tory phenomenon, but I can't think of an election cycle where it was less neccesary to be shy about being a Tory than this one. No clear majority has suddenly become a real possibility.

 

[smat]

Corbyn is going to make a speech tomorrow linking UK's foreign wars to terrorism, which I can't help but feel is a bad misstep. It could be weaponised against him as him being anti our brave troops and doesn't have much to do with Theresa May. He should be absolutely hammering her for her cuts to the police. If the narrative becomes her cuts ---> terrorist attacks she could be in deep, deep trouble.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 43% (-1)
LAB: 38% (+3)
LDEM: 10% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (+1)

(via @YouGov / 24 - 25 May)

Oh blimey! Don't do this! I'd reconciled myself to a huge Tory majority. Don't let me get my hopes up, they'll only be HORRIBLY DASHED

 

[BeesKnees]

Oh blimey! Don't do this! I'd reconciled myself to a huge Tory majority. Don't let me get my hopes up, they'll only be HORRIBLY DASHED

I'm still expecting a 40-50 majority.

However I am thoroughly sick of the right wing negative smear campaign

Well done to skwawkbox for trying to balance the argument.

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/05/25/world-exclusive-corbyn-mowlams-envoy-to-ira-and-loyalists/

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

When were those polls taken?

Shy Tory phenomenon, but I can't think of an election cycle where it was less neccesary to be shy about being a Tory than this one. No clear majority has suddenly become a real possibility.

The YouGov one, as above was 24-25th May, so post-Manchester. There's also a TNS one with a significant narrowing to eight points from their previous poll. Fieldwork for that was earlier (18-22nd).

 

[Aber gas]

State of you glory hunters
Jokes, good to see you aboard. Let's fucking finish this .

 

[JaseTheVillain]

State of you glory hunters
Jokes, good to see you aboard. Let's fucking finish this .

Hey! I've been with it from the start!

 

[Aber gas]

Corbyn is going to make a speech tomorrow linking UK's foreign wars to terrorism, which I can't help but feel is a bad misstep. It could be weaponised against him as him being anti our brave troops and doesn't have much to do with Theresa May. He should be absolutely hammering her for her cuts to the police. If the narrative becomes her cuts ---> terrorist attacks she could be in deep, deep trouble.

Hopefully he raises both. He's right, May has voted for and supported disastrous foreign wars and underfunded domestic security. Right side of history.

 

[The Paranoid Pineapple]

Corbyn is going to make a speech tomorrow linking UK's foreign wars to terrorism, which I can't help but feel is a bad misstep. It could be weaponised against him as him being anti our brave troops and doesn't have much to do with Theresa May. He should be absolutely hammering her for her cuts to the police. If the narrative becomes her cuts ---> terrorist attacks she could be in deep, deep trouble.

Yes, very much agree. Might have been different some years ago but post-Iraq and pos-Afghanistan I don't think this is a message that's going to resonate. If anything it'll do the opposite. Budget cuts, on the other hand, is any area where Labour should be looking to make hay.

 

[Abertawe]

I thinks it's all too early. It could all go wrong for Labour in an instant if a fuck up is made. Smat is right with his assessment. Spitting truth is important but do that once you're in power. It's gonna have to be some speech for it not to get twisted and deemed unpatriotic.

He's still got patriotic material himself though. Labour have pledged to eradicate homelessness and the numbers of homeless that are ex servicemen is shameful. Could tie in with an overall wars in the name of corporations and not the people kind of speech.

Hopefully he's prepared to highlight the selling of weapons to the state that's funding the very terror group that took responsibility of the terror attack that has just caused misery for so many.