Thursday 18th May 2017

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 May, 2017 6:23 am

Good Corbyn

YouGov/Times:

CON 45 (-4)
LAB 32 (+1)
LD 8 (-1)
UKIP 6 (+3)

16th-17th May

I am away for a few days and so won't be able to do these for a bit.

We're going to see a big narrowing in Ipsos/Mori as well

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 7:54 am

Morning.

I missed the Tories' social care announcement last night and I was half asleep when Dilnot was on R4 this morning (at least think it was Dilnot!). Anyway they weren't particularly impressed with the Tories picking some random social care policy out of the air, rather than waiting for the green paper to come out and base it on some kind of considered evidence.

Remember the Tories had a social care policy based on the Dilnot report which they were elected to implement in 2015. Yes, they postponed it, but it was still "live", so anything in this new proposal needs to be compared to their previous proposal and judged accordingly, rather than heralded as better than nothing. If the media fails to do so, we'll need to do so ourselves, I guess.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:04 am

Good morfternoon.

Dilnot says the majority of people receiving care in their own homes, rather than in residential care, “will find themselves worse off”. (Politics Live, Guardian)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:09 am

Sky News has just announced that they were "hoping to speak to Jeremy Hunt" (some hope) about the care plans but they have been told that he is "unavailable". They've got Michael Gove coming in instead.

Edited to add -

According to Politics Live, Jeremy Hunt is on "Today".

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:14 am

From the G live blog:

Having no cap on the amount an individual can be asked to contribute to the cost of their care, Dilnot says, means the government is leaving elderly people “entirely on their own until they’re down to their last £100,000” – including the value of their house.

I feel very disappointed for all of us, the millions of people who are very, very anxious about it.

Dilnot says the majority of people receiving care in their own homes, rather than in residential care, “will find themselves worse off”

What the Tories seem to be doing is extending the current system of using your home to pay for residential care to home care also. If people in residential get to keep £100,000 from the sale of their home, they may be an improvement for them on what happens currently, I think, but people needing care in their own homes will be worse off.

So they've gone from a cap of £ 72,000 to no cap and people receiving care at home paying more?! Really poor.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:16 am

Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:
Having no cap on the amount an individual can be asked to contribute to the cost of their care, Dilnot says, means the government is leaving elderly people “entirely on their own until they’re down to their last £100,000” – including the value of their house.

I feel very disappointed for all of us, the millions of people who are very, very anxious about it.

Dilnot says the majority of people receiving care in their own homes, rather than in residential care, “will find themselves worse off”
What the Tories seem to be doing is extending the current system of using your home to pay for residential care to home care also. If people in residential get to keep £100,000 from the sale of their home, they may be an improvement for them on what happens currently, I think, but people needing care in their own homes will be worse off.

So they've gone from a cap of £ 72,000 to no cap and people receiving care at home paying more?! Really poor.

You know your trouble? You're too idealistic.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:50 am

Pension triple lock gone and now this. Remind me why pensioners vote predominantly for the Tories?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:59 am

PorFavor wrote:
Willow904 wrote:From the G live blog:
Having no cap on the amount an individual can be asked to contribute to the cost of their care, Dilnot says, means the government is leaving elderly people “entirely on their own until they’re down to their last £100,000” – including the value of their house.

I feel very disappointed for all of us, the millions of people who are very, very anxious about it.

Dilnot says the majority of people receiving care in their own homes, rather than in residential care, “will find themselves worse off”
What the Tories seem to be doing is extending the current system of using your home to pay for residential care to home care also. If people in residential get to keep £100,000 from the sale of their home, they may be an improvement for them on what happens currently, I think, but people needing care in their own homes will be worse off.

So they've gone from a cap of £ 72,000 to no cap and people receiving care at home paying more?! Really poor.
You know your trouble? You're too idealistic.

I just believe in evidence-based policy making. If you ask someone to review something and make proposals, why then come along and propose something completely different out of thin air. This just proves the Tories have no interest in fixing the problem at hand. They're trying to fix a different problem - how to avoid spending more money on social care without the system completely collapsing - but trying to make is sound like they are addressing the original problem to hang on to votes. Hope it blows up in their big, fat faces.

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Thu 18 May, 2017 8:59 am

http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolu ... -fast.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not since Henry VIII struggled to rid himself of his “Flanders mare” has London trucked with the continent from a position of such weakness. The new government would be well advised to change strategy. If the Prime Minister uses her election victory to plot a pragmatic and conciliatory course, she will find that her eminently pragmatic party will back her.

interesting (Apart from wanting large majority, but is on conservativehome)

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 9:06 am

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
You know your trouble? You're too idealistic.
I just believe in evidence-based policy making. If you ask someone to review something and make proposals, why then come along and propose something completely different out of thin air. This just proves the Tories have no interest in fixing the problem at hand. They're trying to fix a different problem - how to avoid spending more money on social care without the system completely collapsing - but trying to make is sound like they are addressing the original problem to hang on to votes. Hope it blows up in their big, fat faces.

Indeed. A smallish Tory majority having to serve up the shit they've produced to their faithful supporters. Good luck blaming this on Brexit / foreign looking people.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 9:08 am

@Willow904

My post was a (poor) joke. Theresa May keeps accusing Labour of being "idealistic".

Nothing wrong with a bit of idealism.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 9:15 am

I notice there's a distinct lack of regular posters commenting on the Tories manifesto that regularly criticise the Labour shadow cabinet. Why is that?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 May, 2017 9:49 am

StephenDolan wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
You know your trouble? You're too idealistic.
I just believe in evidence-based policy making. If you ask someone to review something and make proposals, why then come along and propose something completely different out of thin air. This just proves the Tories have no interest in fixing the problem at hand. They're trying to fix a different problem - how to avoid spending more money on social care without the system completely collapsing - but trying to make is sound like they are addressing the original problem to hang on to votes. Hope it blows up in their big, fat faces.
Indeed. A smallish Tory majority having to serve up the shit they've produced to their faithful supporters. Good luck blaming this on Brexit / foreign looking people.

They will do their best, and of course the media will assist them.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 10:31 am

Iain Smith salivating over insurance company "products".

Edited to add an "i". Tried to ignore it as it's him, but had to amend it for my own sake.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 10:32 am

Given the lack of kipper candidates, what percentage are we expecting them to get at the GE?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 10:48 am

StephenDolan wrote:I notice there's a distinct lack of regular posters commenting on the Tories manifesto that regularly criticise the Labour shadow cabinet. Why is that?

I'm trying to find a way to put this that isn't critical, because it's not a criticism of you at all,so please bear with me.

If you are referring to the way SpinningHugo has so conveniently opted out just as the Tory manifesto has come along, I wish you'd just say so, it's a fair observation and I see no need to be subtle about it.

The bit that troubles me is the "regular posters" plural. SH chose the name SpinningHugo, presumably for a reason and we know they were banned from the Guardian. As such, I have little time for them and don't care about direct criticisms of them, but when anonymous references are made to "posters" plural, those criticisms are then being aimed at other people also, possibly implying suspicion of their genuineness in a way I'm not sure is justified in the way it is with SH, who has substantiated facts against them.

I'm sure you don't mean to criticise genuine posters, it's just hard to tell which posters you do mean, unless you are specific. You are not normally a poster I associate with these oblique generalised criticisms so this response being to you is a little unfair, I know, but I'm just trying to explain how such a comment could come across. If I hadn't posted already this morning, I may have read your comment and started wondering if you meant me, among others, because I often criticise Corbyn. So I guess what I'm saying is can people just be a bit more specific? If you think SH is avoiding commenting on the Tory manifesto why not make it clear you are talking about SH. Other posters often don't post until the afternoon so haven't been given a chance yet.

I hope you understand my reasoning for picking up on this. I just think it would be better for the board if there were less generalised, anonymous criticisms of unnamed posters and more direct discussion/disagreements on specific points between active participating posters, if you see what I mean.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 10:53 am

Editorial in today's Times begins with:

The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto, published yesterday, is an exercise not so much in wishful thinking as in thinking, pure and simple.

and ends:

Mr Farron says that his aim is to make the Lib Dems the official opposition. Their chances have not been helped by his leadership. It is tantalising to wonder how the party might have fared with a more charismatic figure to articulate the adventurous ideas in this manifesto. Conservatives should read it with an open mind.

(my emphasis)

Hmmm, I wasn't expecting that !

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comm ... -m57vxcslg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 10:59 am

Good post Willow. I don't see the point in constantly attacking each other - it serves no purpose other than to make people feel unwelcome & ultimately drives them away. This was a friendly board & could be again if people made their arguments instead of assuming other posters have ulterior motives.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:06 am

"The biggest stealth tax in history" does have a nice ring to it.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:08 am

Willow904 wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:I notice there's a distinct lack of regular posters commenting on the Tories manifesto that regularly criticise the Labour shadow cabinet. Why is that?
I'm trying to find a way to put this that isn't critical, because it's not a criticism of you at all,so please bear with me.

If you are referring to the way SpinningHugo has so conveniently opted out just as the Tory manifesto has come along, I wish you'd just say so, it's a fair observation and I see no need to be subtle about it.

The bit that troubles me is the "regular posters" plural. SH chose the name SpinningHugo, presumably for a reason and we know they were banned from the Guardian. As such, I have little time for them and don't care about direct criticisms of them, but when anonymous references are made to "posters" plural, those criticisms are then being aimed at other people also, possibly implying suspicion of their genuineness in a way I'm not sure is justified in the way it is with SH, who has substantiated facts against them.

I'm sure you don't mean to criticise genuine posters, it's just hard to tell which posters you do mean, unless you are specific. You are not normally a poster I associate with these oblique generalised criticisms so this response being to you is a little unfair, I know, but I'm just trying to explain how such a comment could come across. If I hadn't posted already this morning, I may have read your comment and started wondering if you meant me, among others, because I often criticise Corbyn. So I guess what I'm saying is can people just be a bit more specific? If you think SH is avoiding commenting on the Tory manifesto why not make it clear you are talking about SH. Other posters often don't post until the afternoon so haven't been given a chance yet.

I hope you understand my reasoning for picking up on this. I just think it would be better for the board if there were less generalised, anonymous criticisms of unnamed posters and more direct discussion/disagreements on specific points between active participating posters, if you see what I mean.

Fair enough Willow, taken on board.

Pk1, TE and SH can you please let me know what you think of the Conservatives manifesto?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:10 am

Why must Labour supporters yell abuse at Tory events ? Horrible & to the undecided, probably doesn't help party image.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:15 am

I'm not playing your silly game StephenDolan

Clearly, you're not interested in hearing an opinion you don't already agree with.

The reason May can do this though is because she has no fear of losing next month. That's what concerns me.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:21 am

pk1 wrote:I'm not playing your silly game StephenDolan

Clearly, you're not interested in hearing an opinion you don't already agree with.

The reason May can do this though is because she has no fear of losing next month. That's what concerns me.

What game?

I would like to hear what you think of the Tories manifesto. You have expressed scorn at Labour under the current leadership so please, what are your thoughts on the Conservatives policies? Irrespective of whether you think the Tories will win big, large, humongous. Arguably, it's more pertinent because they are going to be the next government's policies.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:22 am

Hi, on phone so typos no doubt.

Getting rid of the triple lock is a good idea.

The social care plan bad. All parties should accept Dilnott.

Isos Mori shows Ukips finished. Amazing numbers.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:24 am

And m sorry but I really am away, in a tent on a hill.

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:30 am

Poll bounce for Labour after manifesto launch:

Cons 47 (-2)
Lab 34 (+8)
LD 7 (-6)
Green 3 (+2)
Ukip 2 (-2)

Ipsos Mori phone poll between May 15 and 17

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:38 am

PorFavor, what do you make of the comma?

pk1 · Post by **pk1** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:41 am

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:46 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:ProFavor, what do you make of the comma?

I think it's wrong. I could accept "Forward - together!" or even, "Forward, together!" I think the exclaimation mark is key. Without it, it doesn't make sense.

Edited to add -

"it" being the comma

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:47 am

PorFavor wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:ProFavor, what do you make of the comma?

I think it's wrong. I could accept "Forward - together!" or even, "Forward, together!" I think the exclaimation mark is key. Without it, it doesn't make sense.

I thought so too

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:48 am

Oh no PF you've "immortalised" my typo in your name!

Sorry!

[Even though I could go and change it but that would be cheating]

tinybgoat · Post by **tinybgoat** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:49 am

pk1 wrote:Why must Labour supporters yell abuse at Tory events ? Horrible & to the undecided, probably doesn't help party image.

Maybe it's old habits, having to yell to be heard over the SWP megaphones - but yes, I thought the same thing seeing the photos.
(though I suppose it's possible that some of them are just v.angry)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 11:50 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Oh no PF you've "immortalised" my typo in your name!

Sorry!

[Even though I could go and change it but that would be cheating]

Don't think it went unnoticed . . .

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 12:32 pm

I thought that, at one point, Theresa May was going to break into "Take My Hand, I'm a Stranger in Paradise".

She's got a thing about hands. (Is that as a result of the Donald Trump experience?)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 May, 2017 12:50 pm

StephenDolan wrote:Given the lack of kipper candidates, what percentage are we expecting them to get at the GE?

They are still standing in a majority of English/Welsh seats, and it has at least some correlation with their stronger areas (to the extent they continue to exist)

So the difference between their poll rating and final score might not be that great.

Same with the Greens (who have more standing than UKIP, though again less than in 2015)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 12:51 pm

12:40
Peter Walker

One element of the Conservative manifesto is how relatively briefly it deals with global environmental protection and climate change, which some argue is the pressing issue of the age.

The section of the document about protecting the global environment runs to 133 words. In contrast, the paragraphs about allowing shale gas extraction and fracking takes up 306 words.
(Politics Live, Guardian)

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 May, 2017 12:54 pm

To be fair to SH, his username is I believe a reference to the late lamented Hugo Young - and the idea he would be "spinning in his grave" these days.

(not least at what has happened to his beloved Graun, I suspect)

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 18 May, 2017 1:57 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:To be fair to SH, his username is I believe a reference to the late lamented Hugo Young - and the idea he would be "spinning in his grave" these days.

(not least at what has happened to his beloved Graun, I suspect)

Can't see any need to be fair to SH.

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 18 May, 2017 2:00 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:To be fair to SH, his username is I believe a reference to the late lamented Hugo Young - and the idea he would be "spinning in his grave" these days.

(not least at what has happened to his beloved Graun, I suspect)

After SH, and others called Noam Chomsky and H&P 'genocide deniers' despite clearly not having read the book they were criticising, nor having a basic knowledge of what constitutes genocide - I note they quickly disappeared when called out on their ignorance btw - but were happy to smear an individual who does more to better the human race whilst wiping his arse than they will achieve in their sorry petty lives, being 'fair' to Hugo is rubbish.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Thu 18 May, 2017 2:01 pm

Happy to give my opinion on the tory manifesto, I think it's utterly miserable.

I think I probably share a sense of surprise about how positive the Labour one was, I could find plenty of things to nit-pick about, but in general it showed there really is an alternative.

StephenDolan · Post by **StephenDolan** » Thu 18 May, 2017 2:03 pm

gilsey wrote:Happy to give my opinion on the tory manifesto, I think it's utterly miserable.

I think I probably share a sense of surprise about how positive the Labour one was, I could find plenty of things to nit-pick about, but in general it showed there really is an alternative.

There's plenty of ammo for the "they're all the same" doorstep chat.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 2:37 pm

Perhaps the most striking energy policy is on fracking, where the Conservatives would remove the need for planning permission for companies undertaking exploratory shale drilling.

Confirmation of continued pro-fracking policy. The cost of oil has nudged up a bit, but I'm still not convinced fracking is viable without huge government subsidy and its contribution to the energy mix can only ever be transitory. Better to invest in more permanent energy solutions. And that's before you even start to consider the environmental impacts.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Thu 18 May, 2017 3:14 pm

Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:To be fair to SH, his username is I believe a reference to the late lamented Hugo Young - and the idea he would be "spinning in his grave" these days.

(not least at what has happened to his beloved Graun, I suspect)
After SH, and others called Noam Chomsky and H&P 'genocide deniers' despite clearly not having read the book they were criticising, nor having a basic knowledge of what constitutes genocide - I note they quickly disappeared when called out on their ignorance btw - but were happy to smear an individual who does more to better the human race whilst wiping his arse than they will achieve in their sorry petty lives, being 'fair' to Hugo is rubbish.

We should even be fair to our enemies, because we are better than them

Temulkar · Post by **Temulkar** » Thu 18 May, 2017 3:27 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Temulkar wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:To be fair to SH, his username is I believe a reference to the late lamented Hugo Young - and the idea he would be "spinning in his grave" these days.

(not least at what has happened to his beloved Graun, I suspect)
After SH, and others called Noam Chomsky and H&P 'genocide deniers' despite clearly not having read the book they were criticising, nor having a basic knowledge of what constitutes genocide - I note they quickly disappeared when called out on their ignorance btw - but were happy to smear an individual who does more to better the human race whilst wiping his arse than they will achieve in their sorry petty lives, being 'fair' to Hugo is rubbish.
We should even be fair to our enemies, because we are better than them

For too long the Left has been fair, balanced and proportionate to fascists, and what has it got us but fascism? We have to start calling this bullshit out, particularly when it is spread insidiously by those who claim to be of the left.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 3:57 pm

Tory manifesto 2017: We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament.

Given the probability of a Tory win, this is something of a relief.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 4:21 pm

Tories plan to merge Serious Fraud Office with National Crime Agency

Reaction from anti-corruption groups and specialist lawyers has thus far been uniformly negative.

Robert Barrington, executive director of the anti-corruption group Transparency International, warned the move would jeopardise the freedom from political interference that the SFO’s investigations currently enjoy:

The underlying concern is that this could be a crude attempt at either cost-saving or to neuter the Bribery Act so that the UK can increase its exports at the expense of the stability, security and economic development of our overseas trading partners. (Politics Live, Guardian - my emphasis)

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 4:26 pm

That's "Brexit" sorted, then. She hopes.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 4:45 pm

Willow904 wrote:
Tory manifesto 2017: We will not repeal or replace the Human Rights Act while the process of Brexit is underway but we will consider our human rights legal framework when the process of leaving the EU concludes. We will remain signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights for the duration of the next parliament.
Given the probability of a Tory win, this is something of a relief.

Not much of one, though.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Thu 18 May, 2017 4:48 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rew-dilnot" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What if there's a house price crash? There seems to me no way you can ensure someone will be left with £100,000 to pass on in their will if their house is only sold to pay back care costs after they've died. Hence the much higher amount compared to the £23,000 or whatever it is now for residential care, I suppose, to ensure councils don't end up in a peculiar kind of "negative equity". Are we sure the Tories have properly thought this through? Or is the purpose to create yet more reasons why a long overdue adjustment in the property market will be resisted at all costs?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Thu 18 May, 2017 5:04 pm

Willow904 wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... rew-dilnot

What if there's a house price crash? There seems to me no way you can ensure someone will be left with £100,000 to pass on in their will if their house is only sold to pay back care costs after they've died. Hence the much higher amount compared to the £23,000 or whatever it is now for residential care, I suppose, to ensure councils don't end up in a peculiar kind of "negative equity". Are we sure the Tories have properly thought this through? Or is the purpose to create yet more reasons why a long overdue adjustment in the property market will be resisted at all costs?

And once again, if you're loaded you don't have much of a problem.

However, if you have no money in the bank but own a house worth around £200,000 (at today's prices) it won't take long to rack up a care bill that quickly brings you down to the £100,000 ceiling (or is it a floor). The percentage of your wealth taken up by this wheeze will be much higher for the less well off.

I wonder if the value of your home will, in future, be taken into account when the care options available to you are presented?

Edited to tidy up