Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » First Winfrey – Trump polling has Oprah 10 points ahead

24

Comments

  • HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    National Insurance will not touch it.

    It will need a combination of increased taxes, specific insurance policies and contributions from those needing care.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,320
    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489
    HYUFD said:



    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.

    I am neither pro-Tory nor Pro-Labour.

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    National Insurance cannot raise the sums needed.
  • Cyclefree said:

    The other issue about taxes is what they are spent on. And value for money.

    I can see the need to pay more for social care, for instance. And I have no objection to doing so.

    But what would mightily piss me off is to pay the higher tax and see that money wasted so that not only do I not get social care when I need it but I also cannot pay for it myself because of all the higher tax I have had to pay.

    I do not have confidence that Labour are concerned about value for money. I fear that they will just spend and that the spending will not be directed sensibly and that additional taxes raised will be just frittered away. So we could end up both personally poorer and without the wonderful public services we have been promised.

    Corbyn makes a good case when he says to the rich that they too will need the NHS one day. But he really needs to address how money raised will be spent so that it really leads to a measurable improvement for patients - and not merely higher wages for staff or more jobs for union members or whatever.

    It is this side of the equation where Labour usually fail. They seem to think that spending, per se, is good without ever asking themselves the question: what are we spending the money on? Is it good value? What does it achieve for the end user? i.e. the patient, elderly person, etc. There is absolutely no evidence so far that Corbyn's Labour has even thought about these questions let alone come up with any convincing answers.

    Another excellent analysis
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    edited January 10


    I know you're not seeing this, but you're displaying confirmation bias in your response there.

    Never mind.

    This is a good article which counter's FF43's final point:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/12/26/to-beat-president-trump-you-have-to-learn-to-think-like-his-supporters/

    Normal politicians collapse in the face of scandal because it shows them dozing on the job or falling short of their promises. To get elected, they offer a bargain: “Vote for me. I will make you richer/fight for your rights/assure your progress.” Scandals reveal that they can’t do that, and thus, they tumble. However, like all populists, Trump offered a much different deal: “Vote for me. I will destroy your enemies. They are the reason you are not rich/have fewer rights/America is not great anymore.” Scandal is the populist’s natural element for the same reason that demolishing buildings makes more noise than constructing them. His supporters didn’t vote for silence. They voted for a bang.
    I agree with this analysis. That's why I said to Casino that Trump's values are objectively cynical while Oprah's are optimistic. Whether optimism or cynicism works better is a different question.

    Trump's problem is that he so far failed to deliver the bang. People might vote for a wily old fox but they hate to be made fools of.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    That sounds about right. 2.5 pence on the basic rate. There are a million more over 65s than there were in 2010. Most will make 75, which is where the costs start to take off exponentially.

    The population growth over the next 12 years according to the ONS, and based on current immigration numbers, is almost entirely in the over 65's. The working age population is projected to be static.

    There is no dodging the demographics, and their financial implications. Someone is going to be be paying more tax. I dont see our youngsters taking that on on top of extreme mortgages, student debt, no pensions and no job security.

  • HYUFD said:



    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.

    I am neither pro-Tory nor Pro-Labour.

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    National Insurance cannot raise the sums needed.
    Absolutely agree - something like 20 billion per year is needed
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 5,390
    Sean_F said:

    FF43 said:

    FF43 said:

    Oprah would be a values candidate and would, I believe, win against Trump because her values are more attractive than his. She can't point to her record. Surprisingly, neither can Trump at the moment, beyond a tax cut for the rich, which is hardly the "Drain the Swamp" new direction for America, which won it for him in the Mid West last time. Incumbent presidents would normally campaign on their records. "I have been working tirelessly to keep Americans safe and deliver the best economy for them. What's Ms Winfrey done, apart from going to Hollywood parties?"

    Bit of confirmation bias there, mate. The values that are attractive to you might not be to many Blue-collar Americans.

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat, and he only did it by a wafer thin margin, but Oprah would need to appeal to the mid-West as well as the liberal east/west coasts to win: it's no use her stacking up the vote still further in California and New York.

    I'll wait to see how politically savvy she is first before backing her. I'm not attracted at under 10/1 based on what little we know now.
    Confirmation bias? What I mean is that Oprah Winfrey represents optimism while Trump represents cynicism. That's not a partisan statement.

    Trump also saw off a slew of Republican challengers who were vastly better qualified than him: Rubio, J Bush, Kaisich - in fact all of them except Ted Cruz who is mad and the surgeon guy who came from nowhere and promptly disappeared back there again.

    Edit. Blue-collar Americans voted for Trump despite thinking him a nasty bit of work because they perceived him as a can-do businessman who would sort things out. They were wrong, which is why it will be difficult for him to win again.
    If Blue Collar wages continue to rise during Trump's term, why would they not vote for him again?
    That's Trump's best chance: hope the economy keeps motoring on and take the credit for it. On current projections he will lose the White House. He has substantially lost the support of blue collar workers who voted for him in 2016 on an America First policy. He will retain his base but that's not enough to win in the absence of a new constituency going his way.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    According to Wikipedia Oprah has six homes, all of them in the US, in California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and Florida.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546
    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    FF43 said:

    Trump's problem is that he so far failed to deliver the bang. People might vote for a wily old fox but they hate to be made fools of.

    Talking of which this was him in Nashville this week:

    https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2018/01/08/trump-oh-you-happy-you-voted-me-you-so-lucky-gave-you-privilege-other-choice-wasnt-going-work-out-we/1014780001/

    "Oh, are you happy you voted for me. You are so lucky I gave you that privilege. The other choice wasn’t going to work out well for the farmers, I hate to tell you," Trump said, to some cheers.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    BigG , I did , I agree with your description , she was very uncomfortable.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 19,519
    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

    He had become disillusioned with New Labour, and thought Cameron was the left wing alternative.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490
    On Topic, at this stage it’s purely name recognition, we don’t know she’s even running, and if she does that her views and policies will align with what people are projecting onto her now.

    There’s also a non-zero chance that there’s people she’s upset over the years to get where she is now, and things she’s done in the past which she might not want to come out during a political campaign.
  • The_ApocalypseThe_Apocalypse Posts: 6,320
    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    She didn’t even get a good headline from the Mail. That’s how we know it’s bad.
  • Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
    McDonnell is going to have this played back to him all the way to the next election. The problem he has is that historic verbal abuse and tweets are seeing people in public life being forced out of office.

    Why should he be any different
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
    Trump won against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee...

    Normal political rules did not apply that year, and they wouldn't have applied to Trump versus AN Other (D).
  • Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

    He had become disillusioned with New Labour, and thought Cameron was the left wing alternative.
    And no doubt a committed remainer, all of whom see TM as the one who is the biggest threat to their dream of staying in Europe
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489
    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490
    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
    I said something similar, that if either side had picked anyone else, anyone else at all, they’d be looking at a landslide.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 15,490
    edited January 10

    Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
    McDonnell is going to have this played back to him all the way to the next election. The problem he has is that historic verbal abuse and tweets are seeing people in public life being forced out of office.

    Why should he be any different
    Hopefully the lesson the right have learned from Toby Young is the need to fight back hard against this sort of abuse, especially when it’s so hypocritical.

    Sadly it seems the mob, having got Young, has now moved back to Esther McVey.
  • EssexitEssexit Posts: 1,576
    Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
    "That seems very out of character for John."

    Has she met him? Put his name into Google? Good grief.

    Andrew Neil once again the finest political interviewer of our time.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 2,546
    edited January 10

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

    He had become disillusioned with New Labour, and thought Cameron was the left wing alternative.
    And no doubt a committed remainer, all of whom see TM as the one who is the biggest threat to their dream of staying in Europe
    Then they must be not thinking straight.May is their best chance of a referendum on how we leave.She always in my book will change her mind as she always does ,when the crunch comes , and big business apply their pressure , it will be her get out of jail card.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 636
    Cyclefree said:

    The other issue about taxes is what they are spent on. And value for money.

    I can see the need to pay more for social care, for instance. And I have no objection to doing so.

    But what would mightily piss me off is to pay the higher tax and see that money wasted so that not only do I not get social care when I need it but I also cannot pay for it myself because of all the higher tax I have had to pay.

    I do not have confidence that Labour are concerned about value for money. I fear that they will just spend and that the spending will not be directed sensibly and that additional taxes raised will be just frittered away. So we could end up both personally poorer and without the wonderful public services we have been promised.

    Corbyn makes a good case when he says to the rich that they too will need the NHS one day. But he really needs to address how money raised will be spent so that it really leads to a measurable improvement for patients - and not merely higher wages for staff or more jobs for union members or whatever.

    It is this side of the equation where Labour usually fail. They seem to think that spending, per se, is good without ever asking themselves the question: what are we spending the money on? Is it good value? What does it achieve for the end user? i.e. the patient, elderly person, etc. There is absolutely no evidence so far that Corbyn's Labour has even thought about these questions let alone come up with any convincing answers.

    For me, the absolute dividing line of British politics for at least 40 years has been between a left who wake in the morning thinking about how to run public services and then constructing an economy that supports that, and the right who wake to build the free market economy and fit public services around that as best they can. If you go by that benchmark, I can barely think of a single politician who was in the wrong party in my lifetime.

    Given this government has offered very little on public services except salami slicing - I have ranted before on the abject failure to turn early austerity into longer term structural reform - and that cutting like this does nothing for efficiency, in my ideal world Labour should absolutely be the natural party of value for money - they need public services to succeed far more than the Tories do.

    Marr's summation of the challenge back in 1997 nailed it - "The job is not to just tax and spend, it is to tax, spend and IMPROVE". It is still true today.

  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
    Trump won against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee...

    Normal political rules did not apply that year, and they wouldn't have applied to Trump versus AN Other (D).
    On a party level, that's true, but not a national level. If the main political parties here even vaguely reflected the country or even the party's own electorates, Yvette Cooper would be facing David Cameron.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

    He had become disillusioned with New Labour, and thought Cameron was the left wing alternative.
    And no doubt a committed remainer, all of whom see TM as the one who is the biggest threat to their dream of staying in Europe
    Then they must be not thinking straight.May is their best chance of a referendum on how we leave.She always in my book will change her mind as she always does ,when the crunch comes , and big business apply their pressure , it will be her get out of jail card.
    Seconded, but it will be a referendum between the deal and Remain, otherwise it's not a get out of jail card.

    As soon as a deal is agreed on paper, the logic of denying people the opportunity to rethink because it will compromise our negotiating position evaporates. If May announced it on the day the deal was agreed, the momentum behind allowing it to happen would be unstoppable.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Sean_F said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    Nor does he have a Conservative bone in his body.
    To be fair , he does was a writer for the Daily Mail and a regular guest on Dateline London .Supported Cameron's administrations in these media outlets .

    He had become disillusioned with New Labour, and thought Cameron was the left wing alternative.
    But that's enough about Andrew Cooper.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    edited January 10

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    In its first years, our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Sure. Try reading the section "National Care Service"

    "In its first years, our service will require an additional £3 billion of public funds every year, enough to 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. "

  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    Pro_Rata said:

    Cyclefree said:

    For me, the absolute dividing line of British politics for at least 40 years has been between a left who wake in the morning thinking about how to run public services and then constructing an economy that supports that, and the right who wake to build the free market economy and fit public services around that as best they can. If you go by that benchmark, I can barely think of a single politician who was in the wrong party in my lifetime.

    Given this government has offered very little on public services except salami slicing - I have ranted before on the abject failure to turn early austerity into longer term structural reform - and that cutting like this does nothing for efficiency, in my ideal world Labour should absolutely be the natural party of value for money - they need public services to succeed far more than the Tories do.

    Marr's summation of the challenge back in 1997 nailed it - "The job is not to just tax and spend, it is to tax, spend and IMPROVE". It is still true today.

    Quite. But I do not believe that Labour will spend and improve. Because they seem to think that spending is a good in itself not as a means to an end i.e. good schools or proper social care or whatever. I feel that their priority is simply having a large publicly owned body with lots of well paid jobs in it and that the service it provides is a largely secondary consideration. That is an exaggeration and a generalisation, I accept. But it has over my lifetime had rather more than a grain of truth in it.

    And Corbyn's Labour simply have no concept of realising that they owe the taxpayer an obligation to spend their money wisely and efficiently and that the aim of public spending is to get services which are for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the unions or those who work in them or politicians or anyone else.

    So I fear that Corbyn will take my money and give me sod all back for it. I do not relish the prospect of getting older with less opportunity to earn, with my savings raided and then still find myself dependant on shit public services. If that's the option I'd rather keep my money to spend on me and mine, especially given how I will have to help them with housing and savings and, indeed, getting jobs abroad, the way things are going.

    I have lived through Labour and Tory governments. None of them have been particularly good at giving value for money. The Tories used to, at least, given the impression that they understood the concept. I am not so sure of this lot. I am quite certain that this iteration of Labour has absolutely no understanding of it and no intention of implementing it, even if they did.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
    Trump won against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee...

    Normal political rules did not apply that year, and they wouldn't have applied to Trump versus AN Other (D).
    Trump won by getting a series of wafer thin majorities in states that Clinton knew she was in trouble in but did not campaign in for fear of seeming weak.

    Generic Dem would have campaigned in those states.
  • ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !
    Sounding rather bitter and abusive fella. Are you John McD?
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489
    Benpointer,

    To be clear, I am in favour of a National Care Service. I am also pro-arithmetic.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 15,402

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !
    Sounding rather bitter and abusive fella. Are you John McD?
    Your wanky contributions are usually better than that.....
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !
    Sounding rather bitter and abusive fella. Are you John McD?
    Peter, you are just a figment of Armando's imagination.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023
    edited January 10
    If Toby's chums and others don't stop going on about how beastly unfair it was for him to offer his resignation people are going to start mentioning the London Conference on Intelligence that he attended last year more loudly.

    Oh, looks like they are: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/2018/01/10/ucl-launches-eugenics-probe-emerges-academic-held-controversial/
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,610
    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,460
    Cyclefree said:

    The other issue about taxes is what they are spent on. And value for money.

    I can see the need to pay more for social care, for instance. And I have no objection to doing so.

    But what would mightily piss me off is to pay the higher tax and see that money wasted so that not only do I not get social care when I need it but I also cannot pay for it myself because of all the higher tax I have had to pay.

    I do not have confidence that Labour are concerned about value for money. I fear that they will just spend and that the spending will not be directed sensibly and that additional taxes raised will be just frittered away. So we could end up both personally poorer and without the wonderful public services we have been promised.

    Corbyn makes a good case when he says to the rich that they too will need the NHS one day. But he really needs to address how money raised will be spent so that it really leads to a measurable improvement for patients - and not merely higher wages for staff or more jobs for union members or whatever.

    It is this side of the equation where Labour usually fail. They seem to think that spending, per se, is good without ever asking themselves the question: what are we spending the money on? Is it good value? What does it achieve for the end user? i.e. the patient, elderly person, etc. There is absolutely no evidence so far that Corbyn's Labour has even thought about these questions let alone come up with any convincing answers.

    The argument often used against Brown is he effectively force fed a starving man a banquet. So much money was thrown at public services which had been so badly emaciated by the Conservatives there was no way the money could all be spent and, in trying to convince the public the money was being properly spent, all that got created was a new bureaucracy to monitor how the money was being spent.

    How though do you define "value for money" ? My definition wouldn't be the same as yours and that would depend on which services I used and how and when I needed them.
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Toby's defence that simply attending a conference is not the same as condoning would have held up better it if he hadn't then spoke at a Monteal Conference on Intelligence along with a bunch of the same attendees from London.

    And he follows them on Twitter.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    Cyclefree said:

    Pro_Rata said:

    Cyclefree said:

    For me, the absolute dividing line of British politics for at least 40 years has been between a left who wake in the morning thinking about how to run public services and then constructing an economy that supports that, and the right who wake to build the free market economy and fit public services around that as best they can. If you go by that benchmark, I can barely think of a single politician who was in the wrong party in my lifetime.

    Given this government has offered very little on public services except salami slicing - I have ranted before on the abject failure to turn early austerity into longer term structural reform - and that cutting like this does nothing for efficiency, in my ideal world Labour should absolutely be the natural party of value for money - they need public services to succeed far more than the Tories do.

    Marr's summation of the challenge back in 1997 nailed it - "The job is not to just tax and spend, it is to tax, spend and IMPROVE". It is still true today.

    Quite. But I do not believe that Labour will spend and improve. Because they seem to think that spending is a good in itself not as a means to an end i.e. good schools or proper social care or whatever. I feel that their priority is simply having a large publicly owned body with lots of well paid jobs in it and that the service it provides is a largely secondary consideration. That is an exaggeration and a generalisation, I accept. But it has over my lifetime had rather more than a grain of truth in it.

    And Corbyn's Labour simply have no concept of realising that they owe the taxpayer an obligation to spend their money wisely and efficiently and that the aim of public spending is to get services which are for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the unions or those who work in them or politicians or anyone else.

    So I fear that Corbyn will take my money and give me sod all back for it. I do not relish the prospect of getting older with less opportunity to earn, with my savings raided and then still find myself dependant on shit public services. If that's the option I'd rather keep my money to spend on me and mine, especially given how I will have to help them with housing and savings and, indeed, getting jobs abroad, the way things are going.

    I have lived through Labour and Tory governments. None of them have been particularly good at giving value for money. The Tories used to, at least, given the impression that they understood the concept. I am not so sure of this lot. I am quite certain that this iteration of Labour has absolutely no understanding of it and no intention of implementing it, even if they did.
    You articulate the concerns of the informed floating voter very well, I think.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 8,132
    stodge said:

    The argument often used against Brown is he effectively force fed a starving man a banquet. So much money was thrown at public services which had been so badly emaciated by the Conservatives there was no way the money could all be spent and, in trying to convince the public the money was being properly spent, all that got created was a new bureaucracy to monitor how the money was being spent.

    How though do you define "value for money" ? My definition wouldn't be the same as yours and that would depend on which services I used and how and when I needed them.

    Can I remind you, just gently, that Brown spent less on public services down to 2000 than the Conservatives did? Admittedly that was because he was following their spending plans, but equally they deliberately formulated those plans to squeeze him in a straitjacket.

    Merely having extra money isn't a lot of help if you're not clear what it needs spending on. That's always been a problem in the public sector (speaking as a teacher) - because there is no comeback for getting it wrong, you often spend first and think second.

    I think I shall join our esteemed Bard in a Sleep. Good night all.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,610

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Oh aye.
    His accidental renaming of his own lecture as the Amanda Holden Memorial is particularly fine, and possibly Freudian.

    https://tinyurl.com/ybowpyph
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Alistair said:

    Hillary was (possibly) the only Democrat Trump could beat...

    I know I've made this point before but I think this is dead wrong. Trump would have chewed up a generic Democratic candidate, or even a non-generic candidate like Sanders. Similarly the Clinton machine would have rolled over a generic Republican candidate.

    Both Trump and Clinton were much more powerful candidates than most people give them credit for.
    No to both of those I think. Generic Republican would have beaten Hilary. The American media would have loved to have had a 'centrist' Republican to write about.

    Similarly a generic Democrat would not have had the Clinton baggage. Clinton comes with huuuge baggage. And generic Dem would have actually held enough of the Blue firewall (assuming they weren't as insane about their campaign stops as Clinton was)

    When it was clear that Clinton was going to be the nominee I thought there was no way the Rs could lose. Obama's 2012 campaign was based on how brilliant a campaigner he was, and how great his targetting game was - the margins were super thin. It was only when I realised Trump was going to be their nominee that I thought the Dems could win and in the end it came down to margins that made Obama's 2012 look like a landslide.
    Who was it said that Clinton and Trump were both facing the only candidate they could hope to win against?
    Trump won against Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Ben Carson, Jim Gilmore, Carly Fiorina, Chris Christie, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee...

    Normal political rules did not apply that year, and they wouldn't have applied to Trump versus AN Other (D).
    On a party level, that's true, but not a national level. If the main political parties here even vaguely reflected the country or even the party's own electorates, Yvette Cooper would be facing David Cameron.
    Except Yvette Cooper polled worse of the 2015 leadership contenders, even worse than Liz Kendall, on your definition it would actually be Andy Burnham v David Cameron but of course Cameron refused to implement the Brexit he campaigned against
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    I've just looked up the requirements to join the army as a private. Turns out you don't need any GSCEs (unless going straight into specialist regiment) but you do need basic fitness, and literacy and numeracy.

    That seems fair enough.

    Also, the salaries are quite good, even for a private. £14,931 whilst on training, and £18,488 once fully qualified. Given the subsidised housing and meals, and decent pension, that's good money. And you get paid more if you specialise. That should be attractive to a decent number of young men (and some women) who don't have many other options.

    The problem for me seems to be for sergeants (£33.5k) and staff sergeants (£37.4k), both of whom seem rather unpaid to me (by £3-4k a piece) for the seniority and level of experience they have, and the key role they play in man management of a unit.

    Officer salaries seem about right to me. But a Major seems a tad underpaid at £50k.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313
    @Pro_Rata and @Cyclefree

    The problem of the governments current approach (not much different to the New Labour one) is that there are simply not enough beds staffed for medical admissions. My own Trust 2 years ago said that they needed two more medical wards to avoid surguical cancellations, and roughly 6 intensive care beds. We do not have either the physical space or staff for them. As a result, each winter when medical admissions rise, we cancel operations. This is nothing new. I met my wife 30 years ago while admitting medical patients to her surgical ward. Not infrequently we would start the Take without a single Medical bed in the hospital. I admitted renal failure patients to ENT wards and heart attacks to Gynaecology. This is not good medical care.

    The 55 000 operations cancelled this month will get done, but at the cost of displacing those due in March, who in turn will displace those due in May etc. In the meantime there is a limit to what surgeons and anaesthetists can do with their time. There is not the space in outpatients, so a lot of idleness of expensive staff, who also get fed up and demoralised. This is not what they trained for.

    This sort of "economy" is not only bad for patients, it is very wasteful of scarce resources. We could improve our use of medical beds if these was a better social care system. possibly a quarter of beds are taken by patients awaiting a care package. There needs to be investment there, in home care as well as residential, but at present either council or individual is saving £1000 per week. This is not the only problem. There are other reasons for delayed transfers. Home OT modifications take time, care packages take a lot of logistical planning etc.

    The problem in A and E is not the front door, it is the back door to the medical admissions unit, and the problem there is not enough staffed beds. Admissions have gone up, but a lot of these are actually readmissions as discharges to inadequate social care fail, and the patient bounces back.

    To get everything working to maximal efficiency, each step of the pathway needs to match the next, otherwise there are bottlenecks.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 3,460
    Cyclefree said:

    Quite. But I do not believe that Labour will spend and improve. Because they seem to think that spending is a good in itself not as a means to an end i.e. good schools or proper social care or whatever. I feel that their priority is simply having a large publicly owned body with lots of well paid jobs in it and that the service it provides is a largely secondary consideration. That is an exaggeration and a generalisation, I accept. But it has over my lifetime had rather more than a grain of truth in it.

    And Corbyn's Labour simply have no concept of realising that they owe the taxpayer an obligation to spend their money wisely and efficiently and that the aim of public spending is to get services which are for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the unions or those who work in them or politicians or anyone else.

    So I fear that Corbyn will take my money and give me sod all back for it. I do not relish the prospect of getting older with less opportunity to earn, with my savings raided and then still find myself dependant on shit public services. If that's the option I'd rather keep my money to spend on me and mine, especially given how I will have to help them with housing and savings and, indeed, getting jobs abroad, the way things are going.

    I have lived through Labour and Tory governments. None of them have been particularly good at giving value for money. The Tories used to, at least, given the impression that they understood the concept. I am not so sure of this lot. I am quite certain that this iteration of Labour has absolutely no understanding of it and no intention of implementing it, even if they did.

    The problem is many people are finding it a struggle to keep the standard of life they have precious little time to enjoy. There are plenty of reasons for that which I won't go on about here and now.

    Someone promising a better life for them and their family and especially promising "the rich" can pay more is going to get a good hearing.

    Perversely, we have a position of a growing economy but it is still not feeding through for many people.

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 28,039

    Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
    McDonnell is going to have this played back to him all the way to the next election.
    It's done him no harm so far, I see no reason why it would in the future.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    stodge said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Quite. But I do not believe that Labour will spend and improve. Because they seem to think that spending is a good in itself not as a means to an end i.e. good schools or proper social care or whatever. I feel that their priority is simply having a large publicly owned body with lots of well paid jobs in it and that the service it provides is a largely secondary consideration. That is an exaggeration and a generalisation, I accept. But it has over my lifetime had rather more than a grain of truth in it.

    And Corbyn's Labour simply have no concept of realising that they owe the taxpayer an obligation to spend their money wisely and efficiently and that the aim of public spending is to get services which are for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the unions or those who work in them or politicians or anyone else.

    So I fear that Corbyn will take my money and give me sod all back for it. I do not relish the prospect of getting older with less opportunity to earn, with my savings raided and then still find myself dependant on shit public services. If that's the option I'd rather keep my money to spend on me and mine, especially given how I will have to help them with housing and savings and, indeed, getting jobs abroad, the way things are going.

    I have lived through Labour and Tory governments. None of them have been particularly good at giving value for money. The Tories used to, at least, given the impression that they understood the concept. I am not so sure of this lot. I am quite certain that this iteration of Labour has absolutely no understanding of it and no intention of implementing it, even if they did.

    The problem is many people are finding it a struggle to keep the standard of life they have precious little time to enjoy. There are plenty of reasons for that which I won't go on about here and now.

    Someone promising a better life for them and their family and especially promising "the rich" can pay more is going to get a good hearing.

    Perversely, we have a position of a growing economy but it is still not feeding through for many people.

    This is correct.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:



    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.

    I am neither pro-Tory nor Pro-Labour.

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    National Insurance cannot raise the sums needed.
    I am sorry but you are wrong, in most other developed countries it is social insurance which pays for social care. As I also said housing wealth already pays for residential care anyway down to the last £23k so there is little more that can be squeezed from that to pay for residential care costs
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
  • kle4 said:

    Sandpit said:

    Yorkcity said:

    Yorkcity said:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/reshuffle-theresa-may-tragic-victim-brexit David Cameron's former speech writer does not seem impressed with May.

    He’s not a fan of Brexit either tbh.
    True , saw the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil said about May and the re shuffle .That she couldn't organise a piss up in brewery .Strong for 1130 am on the BBC.These conservative commentators seem to be getting very agitated.
    Agree about the critiscm but we are where we are.

    As a matter of interest did you see Neil interview Debbie Abrahams over John McDonnell's abuse of Esther McVey. She was speechless and very embarrassed
    Yes, well done to Neil for that rather uncomfortable interview.
    McDonnell is going to have this played back to him all the way to the next election.
    It's done him no harm so far, I see no reason why it would in the future.
    Not at all sure. Now Esther is in the cabinet and the abuse has recommenced it will not go away
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 22,592
    I note the latest Conservatives advertisement (Maybot, Facebook) is now using phrases like "we will take a balanced approach to public spending", rather than "there is no money left". Also majors on living wage, housebuilding, NHS and schools funding, and argues it's all 'underpined' by environment and animal welfare.

    Interesting.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Labour will build a new National Care Service. We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus., enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?

    @ydoethur Your quote above shows how Labour were clearly not saying that £3bn was the total cost to provide a National Care Service ("We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus"). As the earlier quote provided by @YBarddCwsc shows, the £3bn was the money to boost services in the early years only.

    But I am sure you both already know that really! :smile:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112
    stodge said:

    Cyclefree said:

    Quite. But I do not believe that Labour will spend and improve. Because they seem to think that spending is a good in itself not as a means to an end i.e. good schools or proper social care or whatever. I feel that their priority is simply having a large publicly owned body with lots of well paid jobs in it and that the service it provides is a largely secondary consideration. That is an exaggeration and a generalisation, I accept. But it has over my lifetime had rather more than a grain of truth in it.

    And Corbyn's Labour simply have no concept of realising that they owe the taxpayer an obligation to spend their money wisely and efficiently and that the aim of public spending is to get services which are for the benefit of the public, not for the benefit of the unions or those who work in them or politicians or anyone else.

    So I fear that Corbyn will take my money and give me sod all back for it. I do not relish the prospect of getting older with less opportunity to earn, with my savings raided and then still find myself dependant on shit public services. If that's the option I'd rather keep my money to spend on me and mine, especially given how I will have to help them with housing and savings and, indeed, getting jobs abroad, the way things are going.

    I have lived through Labour and Tory governments. None of them have been particularly good at giving value for money. The Tories used to, at least, given the impression that they understood the concept. I am not so sure of this lot. I am quite certain that this iteration of Labour has absolutely no understanding of it and no intention of implementing it, even if they did.

    The problem is many people are finding it a struggle to keep the standard of life they have precious little time to enjoy. There are plenty of reasons for that which I won't go on about here and now.

    Someone promising a better life for them and their family and especially promising "the rich" can pay more is going to get a good hearing.

    Perversely, we have a position of a growing economy but it is still not feeding through for many people.

    Yup - but people think that the "rich" are those earning more than them. Corbyn will test this to destruction, I think. Everyone, including those you describe, will pay more - and may not see much for it.

    Getting a good hearing is one thing. Corbyn does that very well. He gets my attention. But implementing your promises is quite another thing. That is where Corbyn will fail, IMO.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
  • Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126
    edited January 10

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    But how many conferences on realising the Euro-federalist dream have you attended? :smile:
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,112

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    What about speaking alongside them? Young showed an abominable lack of judgment getting involved with such people.
  • John_MJohn_M Posts: 5,967

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Quite. I make a point of following people I disagree with, as sometimes they're right and I'm wrong. No one should live in a bubble. It's also one of the reasons that I've always enjoyed PB; a chance to listen to different views.
  • ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Labour will build a new National Care Service. We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus., enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?

    @ydoethur Your quote above shows how Labour were clearly not saying that £3bn was the total cost to provide a National Care Service ("We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus"). As the earlier quote provided by @YBarddCwsc shows, the £3bn was the money to boost services in the early years only.

    But I am sure you both already know that really! :smile:
    Add a nought to the 3 billion to cover social care. Corbyn either has no idea of the annual cost or is not admitting to it
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Given National Insurance already raises £130 billion a year for the government at the moment, you have just reinforced my own argument

    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions/
  • I note the latest Conservatives advertisement (Maybot, Facebook) is now using phrases like "we will take a balanced approach to public spending", rather than "there is no money left". Also majors on living wage, housebuilding, NHS and schools funding, and argues it's all 'underpined' by environment and animal welfare.

    Interesting.

    New look on the way hopefully
  • AlistairAlistair Posts: 9,023

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Following them on twitter, going to conferences they attend, speaking at conferences they attend, speaking fondly of the conferences you have attended together and broadly agreeing on the genetic inheritance of intelligence however...
  • Regarding the thread, a 10% lead for Oprah Winfrey is not at all impressive. Trump is a president whose (dis)approval ratings still rank as historically the worst of any post war president at this stage of his presidency, even if they are a point or so less dire for him than they were a month ago. Any generic unnamed Democrat is a hypothetical head-to-head with Trump should surely expect better than a 10% lead in those circumstances. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3% and still lost.
  • John_M said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Quite. I make a point of following people I disagree with, as sometimes they're right and I'm wrong. No one should live in a bubble. It's also one of the reasons that I've always enjoyed PB; a chance to listen to different views.
    Good point but for my sins I am not on twitter and David Cameron hit the nail on the head on his twitter comment
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 15,917
    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Given National Insurance already raises £130 billion a year for the government at the moment, you have just reinforced my own argument

    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions/
    And we spend virtually all of that on Health and pensions
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126
    edited January 10

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Having just retired in December I shudder to mention it but NI on pensions would raise a lot! I still find it surprising that I get to keep more of my income than someone earning earning the same income through their hard graft does. Similarly someone sitting on their arse living of their (often inherited) investments pays no NI but will still benefit from social care if needed.

    Also why do we allow higher earners to pay 2% above the upper threshold whereas low to middle earners are paying 12%?

    Much fairer to extend NI to pensioners, investors, and self-employed than simply piling it on the 50-70 age band in my opinion... And the way to do it is to roll NI into income tax.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 1,489

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Labour will build a new National Care Service. We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus., enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?

    @ydoethur Your quote above shows how Labour were clearly not saying that £3bn was the total cost to provide a National Care Service ("We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus"). As the earlier quote provided by @YBarddCwsc shows, the £3bn was the money to boost services in the early years only.

    But I am sure you both already know that really! :smile:
    I think the manifesto is vague, probably deliberately so.

    It seeks to give the impression that the problem can be fixed with comparatively little money (3 billion is not much in terms of Government expenditure, just a penny on income tax).

    I think I would be more impressed with a honest statement of the money needed (I think foxy and myself have provided such an estimate earlier in the thread). And then an accurate assessment of where the money is coming from.

    Successful implementation of an idea as grand as the National Care Service needs a realistic budget at the outset.


  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
    I read that several times and still haven't got really understood what he's trying to say? Europe doesn't make villains like it used to?
  • RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
    You are both EU fanatics and Verhofstadt could be the very architect that destroys Europe if he ever got his way
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 10,610
    edited January 10

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
    He's certainly got a point when it comes to Rajoy..
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
    You are both EU fanatics and Verhofstadt could be the very architect that destroys Europe if he ever got his way
    Have you ever seen Guy and our William in the same room? Thought not... :D
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 313

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    It's as well you're not in the Labour 'our manifesto was fully costed' Party with an attitude like that.

    I would also however advise you never to try to become Chancellor of the Exchequer. Selwyn Lloyd's fate is surely warning enough of what happens to Chancellors who believe in the laws of mathematics.
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Labour will build a new National Care Service. We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus., enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?

    @ydoethur Your quote above shows how Labour were clearly not saying that £3bn was the total cost to provide a National Care Service ("We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus"). As the earlier quote provided by @YBarddCwsc shows, the £3bn was the money to boost services in the early years only.

    But I am sure you both already know that really! :smile:
    I think the manifesto is vague, probably deliberately so.

    It seeks to give the impression that the problem can be fixed with comparatively little money (3 billion is not much in terms of Government expenditure, just a penny on income tax).

    I think I would be more impressed with a honest statement of the money needed (I think foxy and myself have provided such an estimate earlier in the thread). And then an accurate assessment of where the money is coming from.

    Successful implementation of an idea as grand as the National Care Service needs a realistic budget at the outset.


    Though there is at least some indication that Health spending has a very benificial effect on the economy:

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    I am pro-Arithmetic.

    .
    Anyone with Key Stage 3 Maths could work out that the Labour manifesto was not fully costed.

    There were a number of posters on pb.com who believed the numbers like 3 billion pounds for a National Care service. So, it proved a useful idiot test !

    Can you point me to where Labour's manifesto costing proposed £3bn to provide a National Care Service?
    Labour will build a new National Care Service. We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus., enough to 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.

    https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/healthcare-for-all/ (section 'Towards a National Care Service').

    Will that do?

    @ydoethur Your quote above shows how Labour were clearly not saying that £3bn was the total cost to provide a National Care Service ("We will also set out the funding alternatives clearly and honestly, seeking to implement change through consensus"). As the earlier quote provided by @YBarddCwsc shows, the £3bn was the money to boost services in the early years only.

    But I am sure you both already know that really! :smile:
    I think the manifesto is vague, probably deliberately so.

    It seeks to give the impression that the problem can be fixed with comparatively little money (3 billion is not much in terms of Government expenditure, just a penny on income tax).

    I think I would be more impressed with a honest statement of the money needed (I think foxy and myself have provided such an estimate earlier in the thread). And then an accurate assessment of where the money is coming from.

    Successful implementation of an idea as grand as the National Care Service needs a realistic budget at the outset.


    Fair enough. A measured and intelligent response and I don't disagree with you.

    Social Care does need cross-party consensus though and this is where our political leaders and system are letting us down at the moment.

    I was going to suggest a Royal Commission is needed, which lead me to wonder when the last RC was. And it turns out it was the "Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly" in 1998. So that obviously resolved everything then!

    Plan B: try not to need social care.
  • Nick 'Twatbadger' Timothy is at it again.


  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    Regarding the thread, a 10% lead for Oprah Winfrey is not at all impressive. Trump is a president whose (dis)approval ratings still rank as historically the worst of any post war president at this stage of his presidency, even if they are a point or so less dire for him than they were a month ago. Any generic unnamed Democrat is a hypothetical head-to-head with Trump should surely expect better than a 10% lead in those circumstances. Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3% and still lost.

    A 10% lead would be the biggest popular vote winning margin for any presidential candidate since Reagan but yes Biden leads Trump by closer to 15% than 10%
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 17,909
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    Alistair said:

    It would have been such larks to see the Save our Toby campaign defend this.

    Actually, Young's response there is quite good - listening to another point of view (however, controversial) doesn't imply any form of acceptance of it.

    Precisely why he would have been so good in challenging campus "no platform" culture.
    Rather undermined by following wackos like Emil Kirkegaard on Twitter.

    Suggests less a brave inclusive listening to all points of view and more that he agrees with them.
    Following someone on Twitter does not imply endorsement of their views.

    I follow Guy Verhofstadt.
    Really - laugh a minute time
    A daily reminder of why we voted Leave? :p
    I read that several times and still haven't got really understood what he's trying to say? Europe doesn't make villains like it used to?
    Quite. They used to threaten the whole world with Armageddon and racist murder. Now they abuse the CAP and fail to adequately apply decisions of the ECHR.

    It’s sad.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Given National Insurance already raises £130 billion a year for the government at the moment, you have just reinforced my own argument

    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions/
    And we spend virtually all of that on Health and pensions
    And Health has of course now be combined with social care
  • RobDRobD Posts: 30,933

    Nick 'Twatbadger' Timothy is at it again.


    twitter.com/AllieHBNews/status/951215004816199680

    "Boar bites of man's fingertip"? How far the Telegraph has fallen.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 25,550

    According to Wikipedia Oprah has six homes, all of them in the US, in California, New Jersey, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois and Florida.

    Your hero Tony Blair on the other hand:

    Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has a property empire worth an estimated £27m, with he, his wife and his children owning at least 10 houses and 27 flats between them.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tony-and-cherie-blair-have-property-empire-worth-an-estimated-27m-as-young-families-are-price-out-of-a6931431.html
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 2,126

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Given National Insurance already raises £130 billion a year for the government at the moment, you have just reinforced my own argument

    http://budgetresponsibility.org.uk/forecasts-in-depth/tax-by-tax-spend-by-spend/national-insurance-contributions/
    And we spend virtually all of that on Health and pensions
    Social Care is (or at least should be seen as) a sub-section of Health.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 37,511

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:



    The fairest solution for social care is higher national insurance paid by over 50s who are still in work and have often paid off the mortgage and have more disposable income as their children may well have left home too

    I suspect the sums don't work. Number of people in residential care is ~ 500,000 (and rising).

    Most are paying circa 30,000 pa. You need to raise about ~ 15 billion per annum to pay the bill.

    And that doesn't include the money you'll also need for those receiving care in their home.

    How much do you have to increase National Insurance for the over 50s to find this kind of money?

    That is why is politicians are looking at Housing Wealth to pay the Bill.
    Most other countries pay for social care through social insurance and all employees from their 20s (or even 16 if they started work then) until 65 pay National Insurance, so that is the best way to fund it, even if the biggest increases are focused on over 50s I expect all workers will have to pay higher National Insurance to pay for more money for the NHS and social care.

    Housing wealth already pays for residential social care bills anyway, the general election result means neither the Tories nor Labour are likely to touching housing wealth for personal care at home costs with a bargepole, so National Insurance it has to be.
    It will not be enough by a mountain mile
    Well most other developed countries manage to fund social care and state healthcare mainly by social insurance without problems
    We need 20-30 billion pa to fund it. It needs more than NI by a distance
    Having just retired in December I shudder to mention it but NI on pensions would raise a lot! I still find it surprising that I get to keep more of my income than someone earning earning the same income through their hard graft does. Similarly someone sitting on their arse living of their (often inherited) investments pays no NI but will still benefit from social care if needed.

    Also why do we allow higher earners to pay 2% above the upper threshold whereas low to middle earners are paying 12%?

    Much fairer to extend NI to pensioners, investors, and self-employed than simply piling it on the 50-70 age band in my opinion... And the way to do it is to roll NI into income tax.
    Agree with much of that but would still keep NI separate from income tax and ensure it is genuinely hypothecated to pay for health and social care and welfare
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 61,058
    edited January 10
    Well the England selectors have retained Vince for the New Zealand tour :frowning:

    They've dropped Ballance and brought in Liam Livingstone.
This discussion has been closed.