FlyTheNest

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)

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”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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]

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

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 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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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?