Are they? Are you seriously pretending that the Labour party puts the national interest first. You need to have a chat with the marines.
The Labour Party wasn't in Government last time I looked. The Conservative Party are the ones with the problem to resolve because they are in Government. They have become incapable of taking the tough decisions because they are paralysed by fear of being unpopular.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
That was disagreeing with what he said. Disagree with what Trump says to your hearts content.
Nobody suggested that Obama should be barred from entering the country or even worse barred from visiting his nation's own embassy here.
Why shouldn't well off pensioners pay NI? It's not as if the money we pay is ring fenced and put into a ring fenced pension pot. It is general taxation with the pretence it is not. I am sure we could find a way to record state pension contributions in other ways if we just merged it with income tax.
I expect many of today's young people won't get a state pension - they will die before they get it after a life in c**p rented accommodation on low paid insecure jobs with less social care and NHS support which takes a huge toll on their life expectancy
But that is the idea actuarially - you want more people to die before they get a pension as it saves money. And I fully expect life expectancy to soon start falling.
Of course if we weren't £2 trillion in debt and spending £50bn a year on debt interest we could afford a lot more health spending. More borrowing for the NHS today just means more debt interest and less NHS spending in the future - another problem passed onto our grandkids and their kids.
What should be happening is we have properly hypothecated NI to pay for state pensions, the NHS etc.
Life expectancy is also continuing to rise and Millenials are forecast to get the biggest inheritances of any post-war generation and over half of first time buyers get parental assistance with a deposit
Well, SOME Millenials will get windfall inheritances, and may well be able to clear their debts. But for what percentage will it be significant? The rest will fall further behind. A £180 000 Semi in Leicester, split between 3 children is not going to go a long way. That would be more typical outside the SE. Many will inherit only a few personal keepsakes.
There is no getting away from the fact that the .
So what? House prices and the cost of living are far lower outside London and the South East.
In the North and sometimes the Midlands too you can buy a flat or house without help on your own or with a partner on an average salary, something impossible in the South East.
The money for increased social care will come from NI, especially when those with assets already pay for their own residential care anyway
Tory complacency and the focus on the SE, and indeed the wealthier strata there, in a nutshell.
Taking that attitude will neither keep the new Tory voters in the Midlands, nor keep those excluded in the SE from seeing Corbynism as their only hope.
No major UK politicians called for Obama to be banned from the UK - but people reserved the right to disagree with his back of the queue comment. So I don't really get the comparison.
Disagree with Trump - but agree that the President of the US should be able to come here. We have plenty of heads of state coming here in the past from brutal dictatorships which have appalling human rights records - some even got state visits.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
Really ?
All this to make a cheap jibe at Khan who had the temerity to win an election and defeat a Conservative candidate (how very dare he ?).
The London Mayoralty is a hugely political office - it's actually more symbolic than actual power in many respects - and the incumbent is going to be a political figure.
Let's be honest - some people in the UK quite like Trump, some don't. I suspect no one in London will lose any sleep if Trump doesn't visit nor does it "create more division" with the US whose citizens seem quite amenable to visiting Britain by the plane load.
You might lose sleep when Trump decides to back France and divert billions away from London
What’s this influence he has? He can’t get stuff done in US politics and is odds on not to even complete his term. Oh and he’s obviously totally untrustworthy so we shouldn’t rely on any promises he gives us.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
I suggest Carillion is a lay on the market come monday morning,the privatisation of the profit and the nationalisation of the risk and hence the losses.PFI always has been a Ponzi scheme run by and for the bankers.Just how much have the hedge funds made out of Carillion this year?
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
The other side of the proposed policy was that at-home social care, that’s currently completely funded by the council, would now be funded by the individual with assets down to £100k. That is a much larger number of people, and would represent a saving to the government over the current scheme.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
Really ?
All this to make a cheap jibe at Khan who had the temerity to win an election and defeat a Conservative candidate (how very dare he ?).
The London Mayoralty is a hugely political office - it's actually more symbolic than actual power in many respects - and the incumbent is going to be a political figure.
Let's be honest - some people in the UK quite like Trump, some don't. I suspect no one in London will lose any sleep if Trump doesn't visit nor does it "create more division" with the US whose citizens seem quite amenable to visiting Britain by the plane load.
You might lose sleep when Trump decides to back France and divert billions away from London
What’s this influence he has? He can’t get stuff done in US politics and is odds on not to even complete his term. Oh and he’s obviously totally untrustworthy so we shouldn’t rely on any promises he gives us.
He just reduced tax rates, business is booming and so is the US stock market.
He has influence over billions of investments and with the anti Trump tirade coming from Khan why would he not act against London in favour of France or Saudi or anywhere else for that matter
Indeed how many European leaders have attacked Trump in the way Khan has done. Has he been banned from visiting Berlin, Paris, Rome or an other European City
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
More schoolboy nonsense. Stop feeding the troll and do your day job Mr Khan.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
So when Boris Johnson slags off Donald Trump that's ok?
Disagreeing with him is fine and needs to be balanced but Khan does not know how to balance the obvious need to object with the wider interest of London and the UK's economy
So when Boris said Trump was “unfit” to lead America and of “playing the game of the terrorists” that was fine?
More to the point, Boris labelled President Obama an uppity African who hated the UK. Hilarious!!
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
Khan can express opinions, as indeed anyone can, but has no power to ban anyone from London. Only the government can.
I suggest Carillion is a lay on the market come monday morning,the privatisation of the profit and the nationalisation of the risk and hence the losses.PFI always has been a Ponzi scheme run by and for the bankers.Just how much have the hedge funds made out of Carillion this year?
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
That was disagreeing with what he said. Disagree with what Trump says to your hearts content.
Nobody suggested that Obama should be barred from entering the country or even worse barred from visiting his nation's own embassy here.
You'd have to be a bit of an idiot to ask for the POTUS to be barred from visiting immediately after a visit in the last year of his presidency. Only slightly more idiotic than having a prolapse over a pol (with no control over any invitation) saying that the POTUS wasn't welcome when that POTUS has already said he's not coming.
The other side of the proposed policy was that at-home social care, that’s currently completely funded by the council, would now be funded by the individual with assets down to £100k. That is a much larger number of people, and would represent a saving to the government over the current scheme.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
Entirely agree - it needs a Royal Commission and as much expert and cross party opinion as can be gathered. The other side is aspects of the solution may be unpopular but may be necessary to achieve a sensible medium and longer term outcome.
That will require some courageous leadership from whichever party or parties are in Government at the time but also from the Opposition who must be seen to be supportive of a policy which though painful in the short term is clearly in the interests of the country in the medium and longer term.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
Khan can express opinions, as indeed anyone can, but has no power to ban anyone from London. Only the government can.
And for the mayor of London saying the POTUS is not welcome here is not a de facto ban
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
I suggest Carillion is a lay on the market come monday morning,the privatisation of the profit and the nationalisation of the risk and hence the losses.PFI always has been a Ponzi scheme run by and for the bankers.Just how much have the hedge funds made out of Carillion this year?
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with PFI / DBFO, and there are time when such schemes can be very useful. The problems appear to be two-fold:
*) PFI has been applied in cases where it isn't wise; often for political reasons to keep costs off the book; *) Some (though not all) PFI contracts were terribly written and have resulted in a mess of obligations.
PFI should be used when it is most applicable: for instance, road projects can work well as it is easy to delineate responsibilities and it is relatively easy to check performance. IMO it's much less useful for operationally complex projects such as schools, and especially hospitals - although even then apparently some PFI schemes have worked well.
Why shouldn't well off pensioners pay NI? It's not as if the money we pay is ring fenced and put into a ring fenced pension pot. It is general taxation with the pretence it is not. I am sure we could find a way to record state pension contributions in other ways if we just merged it with income tax.
I expect many of today's young people won't get a state pension - they will die before they get it after a life in c**p rented accommodation on low paid insecure jobs with less social care and NHS support which takes a huge toll on their life expectancy
But that is the idea actuarially - you want more people to die before they get a pension as it saves money. And I fully expect life expectancy to soon start falling.
Of course if we weren't £2 trillion in debt and spending £50bn a year on debt interest we could afford a lot more health spending. More borrowing for the NHS today just means more debt interest and less NHS spending in the future - another problem passed onto our grandkids and their kids.
What should be happening is we have properly hypothecated NI to pay for state pensions, the NHS etc.
Life expectancy is also continuing to rise and Millenials are forecast to get the biggest inheritances of any post-war generation and over half of first time buyers get parental assistance with a deposit
Well, SOME Millenials will get windfall inheritances, and may well be able to clear their There is no getting away from the fact that the .
So what? House prices and the cost of living are far lower outside London and the South East.
In the North and sometimes the Midlands too you can buy a flat or house without help on your own or with a partner on an average salary, something impossible in the South East.
The money for increased social care will come from NI, especially when those with assets already pay for their own residential care anyway
Tory complacency and the focus on the SE, and indeed the wealthier strata there, in a nutshell.
Taking that attitude will neither keep the new Tory voters in the Midlands, nor keep those excluded in the SE from seeing Corbynism as their only hope.
No Labour envy in a nutshell. In the North houses are cheap so they have no need to inherit, in the South houses are expensive so most have more need to inherit. In the Midlands house prices are in between so it is still an issue in some areas. If Labour wants to commit political suicide in its southern and midlands target seats by proposing raising inheritance tax, be my guest!
Plus of course the Tories are also building hundreds of thousands more affordable homes through targets set for council local plans anyway
Why shouldn't well off pensioners pay NI? It's not as if the money we pay is ring fenced and put into a ring fenced pension pot. It is general taxation with the pretence it is not. I am sure we could find a way to record state pension contributions in other ways if we just merged it with income tax.
I expect many of today's young people won't get a state pension - they will die before they get it after a life in c**p rented accommodation on low paid insecure jobs with less social care and NHS support which takes a huge toll on their life expectancy
But that is the idea actuarially - you want more people to die before they get a pension as it saves money. And I fully expect life expectancy to soon start falling.
Of course if we weren't £2 trillion in debt and spending £50bn a year on debt interest we could afford a lot more health spending. More borrowing for the NHS today just means more debt interest and less NHS spending in the future - another problem passed onto our grandkids and their kids.
What should be happening is we have properly hypothecated NI to pay for state pensions, the NHS etc.
Life expectancy is also continuing to rise and Millenials are forecast to get the biggest inheritances of any post-war generation and over half of first time buyers get parental assistance with a deposit
Well, SOME Millenials will get windfall inheritances, and may well be able to clear their debts. But for what percentage will it be significant? The rest will fall further behind. A £180 000 Semi in Leicester, split between 3 children is not going to go a long way. That would be more typical outside the SE. Many will inherit only a few personal keepsakes.
There is no getting away from the fact that the .
So what? House prices and the cost of living are far lower outside London and the South East.
In the North and sometimes the Midlands too you can buy a flat or house without help on your own or with a partner on an average salary, something impossible in the South East.
The money for increased social care will come from NI, especially when those with assets already pay for their own residential care anyway
Tory complacency and the focus on the SE, and indeed the wealthier strata there, in a nutshell.
Taking that attitude will neither keep the new Tory voters in the Midlands, nor keep those excluded in the SE from seeing Corbynism as their only hope.
HY is blind to such things. If he is representative, there is no helping the Tories.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
If Trump is genuinely less disposed to the UK because of a few remarks made by the Mayor of London, then Trump is clearly not someone the UK can put any trust in. He is not the first US president to be criticised by UK politicians and will not be the last. George W Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and many others have had all kinds of insults thrown at them. Our current foreign secretary had no problem with insulting President Obama. The difference is, of course, that previous US presidents understood that political attacks are part and parcel of politics.
Why shouldn't well off pensioners pay NI? It's not as if the money we pay is ring fenced and put into a ring fenced pension pot. It is general taxation with the pretence it is not. I am sure we could find a way to record state pension contributions in other ways if we just merged it with income tax.
I expect many of today's young people won't get a state pension - they will die before they get it after a life in c**p rented accommodation on low paid insecure jobs with less social care and NHS support which takes a huge toll on their life expectancy
But that is the idea actuarially - you want more people to die before they get a pension as it saves money. And I fully expect life expectancy to soon start falling.
Of course if we weren't £2 trillion in debt and spending £50bn a year on debt interest we could afford a lot more health spending. More borrowing for the NHS today just means more debt interest and less NHS spending in the future - another problem passed onto our grandkids and their kids.
What should be happening is we have properly hypothecated NI to pay for state pensions, the NHS etc.
Life expectancy is also continuing to rise and Millenials are forecast to get the biggest inheritances of any post-war generation and over half of first time buyers get parental assistance with a deposit
Well, SOME Millenials will get windfall inheritances, and may well be able to clear at the .
So what? House prices and the cost of living are far lower outside London and the South East.
In the North and sometimes the Midlands too you can buy a flat or house without help on your own or with a partner on an average salary, something impossible in the South East.
The money for increased social care will come from NI, especially when those with assets already pay for their own residential care anyway
Tory complacency and the focus on the SE, and indeed the wealthier strata there, in a nutshell.
Taking that attitude will neither keep the new Tory voters in the Midlands, nor keep those excluded in the SE from seeing Corbynism as their only hope.
HY is blind to such things. If he is representative, there is no helping the Tories.
No clueless leftwingers like you fail to realise just how unpopular inheritance tax is and indeed the proposed dementia tax was and how popular Osborne's inheritance tax cut proved to be
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
Khan can express opinions, as indeed anyone can, but has no power to ban anyone from London. Only the government can.
And for the mayor of London saying the POTUS is not welcome here is not a de facto ban
No, it’s not. But if the Tories want to paint Khan as the man who banned Trump from London I’m sure Khan will not have a huge problem with that.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
So it's ok to 'steal' your hard earned cash savings and pensions to pay for your social care but not your assets held in bricks and mortar which have rocked 30 times compared to what you bought them for just by sitting on your settee due to government policy and market forces. Really?
As for what people voted for - May's party got 43 per cent but no majority and Cameron and Blair in 2015 and 2005 got sizeable majorities on 36 per cent. More people voted to endorse the dementia tax you could argue than endorsed the EU referendum plans or Iraq war. Quirks of our weird voting system where seats are won by 20 votes.
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
The other side of the proposed policy was that at-home social care, that’s currently completely funded by the council, would now be funded by the individual with assets down to £100k. That is a much larger number of people, and would represent a saving to the government over the current scheme.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
Entirely agree - it needs a Royal Commission and as much expert and cross party opinion as can be gathered. The other side is aspects of the solution may be unpopular but may be necessary to achieve a sensible medium and longer term outcome.
That will require some courageous leadership from whichever party or parties are in Government at the time but also from the Opposition who must be seen to be supportive of a policy which though painful in the short term is clearly in the interests of the country in the medium and longer term.
Absolutely.
I think (yes I know) that there’s a desire among the general population for the politicians to sort this out between them, and to stop using absurdities to label a policy merely because it’s proposed by politicians of a different party. The current system is completely broken and is adding to NHS winter pressures as people can’t be moved out of the wards. Maybe a ‘recuperation ward’ is needed at the hospital, charged back to the patient?
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
If Trump is genuinely less disposed to the UK because of a few remarks made by the Mayor of London, then Trump is clearly not someone the UK can put any trust in. He is not the first US president to be criticised by UK politicians and will not be the last. George W Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and many others have had all kinds of insults thrown at them. Our current foreign secretary had no problem with insulting President Obama. The difference is, of course, that previous US presidents understood that political attacks are part and parcel of politics.
Hilary Clinton was never US President. She was beaten by Donald Trump.
Which is sort of the problem we have at this moment, indeed...
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
Khan can express opinions, as indeed anyone can, but has no power to ban anyone from London. Only the government can.
And for the mayor of London saying the POTUS is not welcome here is not a de facto ban
Exactly. Khan cannot ban him, either for an official visit or for an informal one. He can refuse to meet him, but nothing more.
I would be quite happy for Trump to visit, and as it was Trump himself who decided not to come, not Khan, I am not sure where this outrage bus is going.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
If Trump is genuinely less disposed to the UK because of a few remarks made by the Mayor of London, then Trump is clearly not someone the UK can put any trust in. He is not the first US president to be criticised by UK politicians and will not be the last. George W Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald Reagan and many others have had all kinds of insults thrown at them. Our current foreign secretary had no problem with insulting President Obama. The difference is, of course, that previous US presidents understood that political attacks are part and parcel of politics.
Indeed the Tories tried to help Bush senior beat Clinton. As to whether we can trust Trump - we suspended intelligence sharing because he and his administration kept leaking stuff. It’s pretty clear we can’t trust him.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
It’s what us Londoners want. What is self defeating about calling a racist out - it’s leadership. I wish our country would have the balls to call it out too.
Apologies for being rude but the mood here is very “f*ck off Trump”.
The other side of the proposed policy was that at-home social care, that’s currently completely funded by the council, would now be funded by the individual with assets down to £100k. That is a much larger number of people, and would represent a saving to the government over the current scheme.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
Entirely agree - it needs a Royal Commission and as much expert and cross party opinion as can be gathered. The other side is aspects of the solution may be unpopular but may be necessary to achieve a sensible medium and longer term outcome.
That will require some courageous leadership from whichever party or parties are in Government at the time but also from the Opposition who must be seen to be supportive of a policy which though painful in the short term is clearly in the interests of the country in the medium and longer term.
Absolutely.
I think (yes I know) that there’s a desire among the general population for the politicians to sort this out between them, and to stop using absurdities to label a policy merely because it’s proposed by politicians of a different party. The current system is completely broken and is adding to NHS winter pressures as people can’t be moved out of the wards. Maybe a ‘recuperation ward’ is needed at the hospital, charged back to the patient?
No need for a Royal Commision to tell us what we already know!
Sensible Tories, LDs and Labour are quite willing already to take a tripartite position. Wollaston, Lamb, Kendall have proposed this already:
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
It’s what us Londoners want. What is self defeating about calling a racist out - it’s leadership. I wish our country would have the balls to call it out too.
Apologies for being rude but the mood here is very “f*ck off Trump”.
What’s your view of the Saudis or Qataris visiting London?
So a whole 20 more EU nationals left the ambulance service in the year post the referendum across the UK than the year before. Still that's a 20 per cent rise!
Reminds me of the story about the 10,000 or So EU staff who had left the NHS post Brexit - which was true. But 13000 had also actually joined as well so there was actually a 3000 net increase. Cos of course young professional people never change jobs or move countries for career progression.
Surprising they didn't use percentages - as they usually do when the actual numbers are tiny numerically.
What the article doesn't tell us is how many EU nationals joined the ambulance service and what was the NET change which is perhaps more relevant. We're there none at all - or even more than the 101 who left? Do let us know Guardian?
The other side of the proposed policy was that at-home social care, that’s currently completely funded by the council, would now be funded by the individual with assets down to £100k. That is a much larger number of people, and would represent a saving to the government over the current scheme.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
Entirely agree - it needs a Royal Commission and as much expert and cross party opinion as can be gathered. The other side is aspects of the solution may be unpopular but may be necessary to achieve a sensible medium and longer term outcome.
That will require some courageous leadership from whichever party or parties are in Government at the time but also from the Opposition who must be seen to be supportive of a policy which though painful in the short term is clearly in the interests of the country in the medium and longer term.
Absolutely.
I think (yes I know) that there’s a desire among the general population for the politicians to sort this out between them, and to stop using absurdities to label a policy merely because it’s proposed by politicians of a different party. The current system is completely broken and is adding to NHS winter pressures as people can’t be moved out of the wards. Maybe a ‘recuperation ward’ is needed at the hospital, charged back to the patient?
No need for a Royal Commision to tell us what we already know!
Sensible Tories, LDs and Labour are quite willing already to take a tripartite position. Wollaston, Lamb, Kendall have proposed this already:
Good luck to all those involved, hope that that proposal can be debated and actioned quickly.
Sadly, I think that the Royal Commission is necessary because those in opposition would prefer to hit the government than move towards a sensible compromise.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
It’s what us Londoners want. What is self defeating about calling a racist out - it’s leadership. I wish our country would have the balls to call it out too.
Apologies for being rude but the mood here is very “f*ck off Trump”.
What’s your view of the Saudis or Qataris visiting London?
* Look at the shadow to the left of the van of the left. Note the point where that shadow falls on the white stripe of the white line. That part of the right line is at the wrong angle. * Look at the van on the left and work out which direction it's going. If that was IRL it would be travelling at an angle. The perspective is wrong. * The left van is identical to the right van.
The right van has been copied and pasted to the left.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential ng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
So it's ok to 'steal' your hard earned cash savings and pensions to pay for your social care but not your assets held in bricks and mortar which have rocked 30 times compared to what you bought them for just by sitting on your settee due to government policy and market forces. Really?
As for what people voted for - May's party got 43 per cent but no majority and Cameron and Blair in 2015 and 2005 got sizeable majorities on 36 per cent. More people voted to endorse the dementia tax you could argue than endorsed the EU referendum plans or Iraq war. Quirks of our weird voting system where seats are won by 20 votes.
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
The voters quite clearly decided that in June, yes, when you are still living at home but receiving carers there it is not up to the government to confiscate it. Corbyn opposed the dementia tax (and indeed one of the few sensible things he got right) and many Tories including me opposed it but still voted Tory anyway but it was that more than anything else which cost the Tories their majority, it is a policy which will almost certainly never be revived again.
The voters of course were happy with the £100k asset threshold what they were not happy with was including the house in the assessment.
Sadly, I think that the Royal Commission is necessary because those in opposition would prefer to hit the government than move towards a sensible compromise.
Even if there was a Royal Commission, it wouldn't stop the opposition from prefering to hit the government.
Given Ciudadanos also oppose independence and another independence referendum and even on that poll the PP are second it does not change the Catalan situation much
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Sadly, I think that the Royal Commission is necessary because those in opposition would prefer to hit the government than move towards a sensible compromise.
Even if there was a Royal Commission, it wouldn't stop the opposition from prefering to hit the government.
The idea that a Royal Commission would not be political is delusional.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential ng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
So it's ok to 'steal' your hard earned cash savings and pensions to pay for your social care but not your assets held in bricks and mortar which have rocked 30 times compared to what you bought them for just by sitting on your settee due to government policy and market forces. Really?
As for what people voted for - May's party got 43 per cent but no majority and Cameron and Blair in 2015 and 2005 got sizeable majorities on 36 per cent. More people voted to endorse the dementia tax you could argue than endorsed the EU referendum plans or Iraq war. Quirks of our weird voting system where seats are won by 20 votes.
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
they were not happy with was including the house in the assessment.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential ng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
So it's ok to 'steal' your hard earned cash savings and pensions to pay for your social care but not your assets held in bricks and mortar which have rocked 30 times compared to what you bought them for just by sitting on your settee due to government policy and market forces. Really?
As for what people voted for - May's party got 43 per cent but no majority and Cameron and Blair in 2015 and 2005 got sizeable majorities on 36 per cent. More people voted to endorse the dementia tax you could argue than endorsed the EU referendum plans or Iraq war. Quirks of our weird voting system where seats are won by 20 votes.
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
they were not happy with was including the house in the assessment.
Was the no.1 issue in my canvass
Yes mine too, it was the worst policy decision of any party in any manifesto for decades
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
That article is devastating. It appears that Theresa is a megalomaniac who isn't going anywhere. She's also Nick Timothy's weird creation and he still controls it.
The action should be against the professional indemnity insurance of the advising solicitor. There’s no rule against sh!t contracts, but if you’re paying someone to advise you it’s negligent if they don’t point it out.
The action should be against the professional indemnity insurance of the advising solicitor. There’s no rule against sh!t contracts, but if you’re paying someone to advise you it’s negligent if they don’t point it out.
The government has banned them; Taylor Wimpey ad a couple of others will bail their own purchasers out.
Some of the rest will have claims against their solicitors/conveyancers.
Some might have consumer protection claims. Others will be left to argue the red hand rule...
It's going to be interesting to see how the government deals with the Carillion situation. There are plenty of political pitfalls in the short-term whatever they do.
The action should be against the professional indemnity insurance of the advising solicitor. There’s no rule against sh!t contracts, but if you’re paying someone to advise you it’s negligent if they don’t point it out.
Thanks Sandpit , I can not believe they did not point it out, if they did not surely must be negligent.I remember many moons ago been talked into endowment mortgage.The estate agent in those days would not put your bid in , unless you took one out .A year after moving in I change to a repayment mortgage .However this practice seems a lot worse.
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
That article is devastating. It appears that Theresa is a megalomaniac who isn't going anywhere. She's also Nick Timothy's weird creation and he still controls it.
According to that article Gavin Williamson is now the heir apparent of the Mayites and heavily promoted by Nick Timothy and the reshuffle was limited in scope to avoid too many new faces coming into Cabinet to challenge him. Their aim is to keep May as long as possible but have Williamson ready as the Crown Prince when she goes to lead the Tories into the next general election. I think Boris, Gove, Davis, Mogg and the few other new faces in the Cabinet like Hinds and Mourdaunt may have other ideas
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
That article is devastating. It appears that Theresa is a megalomaniac who isn't going anywhere. She's also Nick Timothy's weird creation and he still controls it.
According to that article Gavin Williamson is now the heir apparent of the Mayites and heavily promoted by Nick Timothy and the reshuffle was limited in scope to avoid too many new faces coming into Cabinet to challenge him. Their aim is to keep May as long as possible but have Williamson ready as the Crown Prince when she goes to lead the Tories into the next general election. I think Boris, Gove, Davis, Mogg and the few other new faces in the Cabinet like Hinds and Mourdaunt may have other ideas
There's a whiff of Thatch's golden boy John Moore about Williamson, with added weaselly self interest.
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
That article is devastating. It appears that Theresa is a megalomaniac who isn't going anywhere. She's also Nick Timothy's weird creation and he still controls it.
According to that article Gavin Williamson is now the heir apparent of the Mayites and heavily promoted by Nick Timothy and the reshuffle was limited in scope to avoid too many new faces coming into Cabinet to challenge him. Their aim is to keep May as long as possible but have Williamson ready as the Crown Prince when she goes to lead the Tories into the next general election. I think Boris, Gove, Davis, Mogg and the few other new faces in the Cabinet like Hinds and Mourdaunt may have other ideas
There's a whiff of Thatch's golden boy John Moore about Williamson, with added weaselly self interest.
He seems a bit more ruthless than John Moore but without the looks
It's going to be interesting to see how the government deals with the Carillion situation. There are plenty of political pitfalls in the short-term whatever they do.
Yes very true , hard to understand how they have got into this situation , with so many guaranteed government construction contracts.
It's going to be interesting to see how the government deals with the Carillion situation. There are plenty of political pitfalls in the short-term whatever they do.
Yes very true , hard to understand how they have got into this situation , with so many guaranteed government construction contracts.
From what I've been reading, some of it has been due to late payments to them for foreign contracts. If that's the case, I have some sympathy.
I expect that the developers offered the buyers "free" conveyancing, and steered them to their favoured solicitors.
Exercising their right to buy the freehold may be their best way out of their predicament (as well as considering legal action against their former solicitor).
So a whole 20 more EU nationals left the ambulance service in the year post the referendum across the UK than the year before. Still that's a 20 per cent rise!
Reminds me of the story about the 10,000 or So EU staff who had left the NHS post Brexit - which was true. But 13000 had also actually joined as well so there was actually a 3000 net increase. Cos of course young professional people never change jobs or move countries for career progression.
Surprising they didn't use percentages - as they usually do when the actual numbers are tiny numerically.
What the article doesn't tell us is how many EU nationals joined the ambulance service and what was the NET change which is perhaps more relevant. We're there none at all - or even more than the 101 who left? Do let us know Guardian?
And they go on about others being misleading!
I read this at HT in the football and pissed myself, came straight to PB knowing others would have discussed it. 100 people across a year in England, and as you've said no information on the net numbers and yet they've made it their big headline. If the Guardian keeps up with misleading nonsense as their big splash is it no wonder people won't trust them on other 'Brexit' stories?
So a whole 20 more EU nationals left the ambulance service in the year post the referendum across the UK than the year before. Still that's a 20 per cent rise!
Reminds me of the story about the 10,000 or So EU staff who had left the NHS post Brexit - which was true. But 13000 had also actually joined as well so there was actually a 3000 net increase. Cos of course young professional people never change jobs or move countries for career progression.
Surprising they didn't use percentages - as they usually do when the actual numbers are tiny numerically.
What the article doesn't tell us is how many EU nationals joined the ambulance service and what was the NET change which is perhaps more relevant. We're there none at all - or even more than the 101 who left? Do let us know Guardian?
And they go on about others being misleading!
I read this at HT in the football and pissed myself, came straight to PB knowing others would have discussed it. 100 people across a year in England, and as you've said no information on the net numbers and yet they've made it their big headline. If the Guardian keeps up with misleading nonsense as their big splash is it no wonder people won't trust them on other 'Brexit' stories?
Surely E27 staff leaving is a feature, not a bug, of Brexit?
Wasn't a substantial part of the point of Brexit to reduce net immigration?
I expect that the developers offered the buyers "free" conveyancing, and steered them to their favoured solicitors.
Exercising their right to buy the freehold may be their best way out of their predicament (as well as considering legal action against their former solicitor).
Difficult for most people to find £14k+ in cash not long after sinking it into the property
It's going to be interesting to see how the government deals with the Carillion situation. There are plenty of political pitfalls in the short-term whatever they do.
Yes very true , hard to understand how they have got into this situation , with so many guaranteed government construction contracts.
From what I've been reading, some of it has been due to late payments to them for foreign contracts. If that's the case, I have some sympathy.
If that's the case then a bridging loan from the government shouldn't leave the taxpayer out of pocket.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Well it might be Bollox but that in fact is what they have done. Their kids and grandkids may now inherit only £23k between them whereas under the so called dementia tax they would have kept £100k.
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
It's the Lib Dems being deliberately dishonest sorry I meanr 'campaigning', or the Guardian being as gormless as usual.
Staff in the Ambulance Trusts are around 25-30000, so this represents a small fluctuation in a sub-group comprising 2-3% of staff being presented as an existential threat.
Ambrosia for gullible remainiacs with Arts Degrees, and complete baloney.
Why shouldn't well off pensioners pay NI? It's not as if the money we pay is ring fenced and put into a ring fenced pension pot. It is general taxation with the pretence it is not. I am sure we could find a way to record state pension contributions in other ways if we just merged it with income tax.
I expect many of today's young people won't get a state pension - they will die before they get it after a life in c**p rented accommodation on low paid insecure jobs with less social care and NHS support which takes a huge toll on their life expectancy
But that is the idea actuarially - you want more people to die before they get a pension as it saves money. And I fully expect life expectancy to soon start falling.
Of course if we weren't £2 trillion in debt and spending £50bn a year on debt interest we could afford a lot more health spending. More borrowing for the NHS today just means more debt interest and less NHS spending in the future - another problem passed onto our grandkids and their kids.
What should be happening is we have properly hypothecated NI to pay for state pensions, the NHS etc.
Life expectancy is also continuing to rise and Millenials are forecast to get the biggest inheritances of any post-war generation and over half of first time buyers get parental assistance with a deposit
Well, SOME Millenials will get windfall inheritances, and may well be able to clear their debts. But for what percentage will it be significant? The rest will fall further behind. A £180 000 Semi in Leicester, split between 3 children is not going to go a long way. That would be more typical outside the SE. Many will inherit only a few personal keepsakes.
There is no getting away from the fact that the expansion of the population over the next couple of decades is in the over 65's, with a stable working age population even with current levels of immigration. There will be an increased burden on each worker, and personal care is not easy to automate even if desired. The money has to come from somewhere, and ultimately it has to come from those who have assets, as fleecing those without is not very effective.
A small semi in Leicester will provide very generous deposits on 3 or 4 small semis in Leicester.
It's the Lib Dems being deliberately dishonest sorry I meanr 'campaigning', or the Guardian being as gormless as usual.
Staff in the Ambulance Trusts are around 25-30000, so this represents a small fluctuation in a sub-group comprising 2-3% of staff being presented as an existential threat.
Ambrosia for gullible remainiacs with Arts Degrees, and complete baloney.
Sure, and we don't know whether UK paramedics are quitting at a proportionate rate. It may be a morale and workload issue rather than a Brexit one.
My anecdata is that all but one of our Spanish nurses have left. The remaining one seems quite happy. The Portuguese have all gone, and we have recruited only 1 new Greek, and 1 Italian Doctor, both on 2 year contracts. This is a net loss as 3 Greek Doctors have left. Surely this was the point of Brexit though?
Our ward is short 6 WTE nursing staff, despite repeated advertising.
It's the Lib Dems being deliberately dishonest sorry I meanr 'campaigning', or the Guardian being as gormless as usual.
Staff in the Ambulance Trusts are around 25-30000, so this represents a small fluctuation in a sub-group comprising 2-3% of staff being presented as an existential threat.
Ambrosia for gullible remainiacs with Arts Degrees, and complete baloney.
Sure, and we don't know whether UK paramedics are quitting at a proportionate rate. It may be a morale and workload issue rather than a Brexit one.
My anecdata is that all but one of our Spanish nurses have left. The remaining one seems quite happy. The Portuguese have all gone, and we have recruited only 1 new Greek, and 1 Italian Doctor, both on 2 year contracts. This is a net loss as 3 Greek Doctors have left. Surely this was the point of Brexit though?
Our ward is short 6 WTE nursing staff, despite repeated advertising.
Out of how many? It'd be good to get a sense of proportion.
* Look at the shadow to the left of the van of the left. Note the point where that shadow falls on the white stripe of the white line. That part of the right line is at the wrong angle. * Look at the van on the left and work out which direction it's going. If that was IRL it would be travelling at an angle. The perspective is wrong. * The left van is identical to the right van.
The right van has been copied and pasted to the left.
Nobody cares if things are faked anymore. All that matters is whether it's funny or otherwise makes them feel better.
That's why no-one has to bother to do a good job with their Photoshop. A shoddy one is as good.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be m sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Well it might be Bollox but that in fact is what they have done. Their kids and grandkids may now inherit only £23k between them whereas under the so called dementia tax they would have kept £100k.
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
The most sensible policy would have been to raise the threshold for care costs liability to £100k but keep the home immune from liability for personal at home care costs. That policy would have proved popular and got May an increased majority rather than the lost majority she ended up with
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be m sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Well it might be Bollox but that in fact is what they have done. Their kids and grandkids may now inherit only £23k between them whereas under the so called dementia tax they would have kept £100k.
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
The most sensible policy would have been to raise the threshold for care costs liability to £100k but keep the home immune from liability for personal at home care costs. That policy would have proved popular and got May an increased majority rather than the lost majority she ended up with
Keeping the home immune from liability creates a massive distortion in the housing market though. It's a small contributory factor in the mess of housing in this country.
It seems to me that the people who are so apalled by Trump tend to end up behaving as badly as he does. It shouldn't even be an occurence that UK politicians queue up to lay into a foreign head of state. It's juvenile and self-indulgent. As always, Boris Johnson gets it totally wrong in accusing Khan of endangering the special relationship - Khan shouldn't be grandstanding about any visiting dignitary, regardless of their perceived importance. Because it is poor form and the wrong thing to do.
Got it, no criticising anyone ever.
Ridiculous remark. Criticism is fine - bedwetting meltdowns using every epiphet under the sun are not. It's the same descent into crowd pleasing vulgarity diminishing the dignity of politics that they accuse Trump of.
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
That article is devastating. It appears that Theresa is a megalomaniac who isn't going anywhere. She's also Nick Timothy's weird creation and he still controls it.
According to that article Gavin Williamson is now the heir apparent of the Mayites and heavily promoted by Nick Timothy and the reshuffle was limited in scope to avoid too many new faces coming into Cabinet to challenge him. Their aim is to keep May as long as possible but have Williamson ready as the Crown Prince when she goes to lead the Tories into the next general election. I think Boris, Gove, Davis, Mogg and the few other new faces in the Cabinet like Hinds and Mourdaunt may have other ideas
There's a whiff of Thatch's golden boy John Moore about Williamson, with added weaselly self interest.
Wow! The article really is devastating stuff. Certainly explains a lot of oddities around the reshuffle.
I suspect though that May has made a powerful enemy in Greening. There will be a reckoning.
Trump is an egocentric buffoon. Putin is a serial murderer. One is obnoxious and occasionally racist. One kills journalists and anyone else who crosses him. People really need to get a better sense of priorities.
Just out of interest, how can you be occasionally racist? You either are or you’re aren’t, aren’t you? Given Trump has given white supremacists senior positions in his administration, endorsed them for office, failed to condemn their violence and terrorism, and made any number of racist remarks, it’s pretty clear where he stands. And white supremacists kill a lot of people in the US. But I guess Trump’s not an uppity African, so you can understand why Boris would be so indignant about any criticism he might get.
So you think there is a moral equivalence? Wow.
I think that if Trump had the tools Putin has he’d use them in exactly the same way
You think he’d arrange assassinations on the streets of foreign capitals?
Trump, and Obama before him, routinely do this, via the US 800 military bases in 70 countries across the world. Drones, Special Forces.
Yes - but these could be classified as “military” operations and don’t involve leaving trails of radioactivity across Europe or the streets and hotels of London.
Yes, and they're mainly brown people who don't matter.
I see that today is the day that all the people who strongly counsel that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable are going to be confirming that they want to increase Britain's spending on defence.
Oh dear: an AM "I see" post.
You at your worst.
Idiots like you who think that "defence" requires Britain being able to nuke the four corners of the globe bring out the worst in anyone with two brain cells.
I presume you think the same of anyone else who supports Trident then, including David Cameron, George Osborne and Tony Blair, and the vast majority of the House of Commons.
I'm saving this one for the next time you accuse others of making personal attacks on you, but never the other way round.
What a shame.
Go off and enjoy your Churchill film and wallow in nostalgic fantasies about how Britain stood alone nearly 80 years ago. Meanwhile the rest of us have to live in the 21st century, a century that is going to be substantially worse for Britain because of the course that you among others have advocated, befuddled by out of date dreams of a Britain that never was.
I think I agree with Alistair Meeks. A sit down and a stiff drink may be required.
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be paid for out of his assets (including his property) until he either dies or his assets reach £23,250.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No. The Thatcherite thing would be to leave those who haven't saved for the possibility of needing social care to rot. But we can't do that, can we?
So we need to work out what's fair for those who feel that they ought to save.
'Britain First fan who drove van at London restaurant owner walks free
A Britain First supporter who drove at a curry restaurant owner after saying “I’m going to kill a Muslim” is to walk free after serving his prison sentence while on remand. The Old Bailey heard that Marek Zakrocki, 48, also gave a Nazi salute and shouted “white power” before driving his van at Kamal Ahmed outside Spicy Night restaurant in Harrow, north-west London, on 23 June last year – the first anniversary of the Brexit vote. He told a police officer while in his van: “I’m going to kill a Muslim. I’m doing it for Britain. This is how I’m going to help the country. You people cannot do anything.”'
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be m sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Well it might be Bollox but that in fact is what they have done. Their kids and grandkids may now inherit only £23k between them whereas under the so called dementia tax they would have kept £100k.
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
The most sensible policy would have been to raise the threshold for care costs liability to £100k but keep the home immune from liability for personal at home care costs. That policy would have proved popular and got May an increased majority rather than the lost majority she ended up with
It would also have cost the government a fortune. The whole point of the policy that was proposed was to save the government money by making those with assets use them to pay for their own care.
I see that today is the day that all the people who strongly counsel that increasing funding for the NHS is unaffordable are going to be confirming that they want to increase Britain's spending on defence.
Oh dear: an AM "I see" post.
You at your worst.
Idiots like you who think that "defence" requires Britain being able to nuke the four corners of the globe bring out the worst in anyone with two brain cells.
I presume you think the same of anyone else who supports Trident then, including David Cameron, George Osborne and Tony Blair, and the vast majority of the House of Commons.
I'm saving this one for the next time you accuse others of making personal attacks on you, but never the other way round.
What a shame.
Go off and enjoy your Churchill film and wallow in nostalgic fantasies about how Britain stood alone nearly 80 years ago. Meanwhile the rest of us have to live in the 21st century, a century that is going to be substantially worse for Britain because of the course that you among others have advocated, befuddled by out of date dreams of a Britain that never was.
I think I agree with Alistair Meeks. A sit down and a stiff drink may be required.
It's going to be interesting to see how the government deals with the Carillion situation. There are plenty of political pitfalls in the short-term whatever they do.
As far as I can see every option is a terrible one.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
D'ye think Trump respects the office of POTUS?
Do you think two wrongs make a right?
We should respect the office of POTUS despite Trump not because of him.
'Tis as if the all that bilious squawking after Barry's 'back of the queue' comment had never happened. Still, he was part Kenyan with an ancestral dislike of Britain, so deserved all he got.
I expect that the developers offered the buyers "free" conveyancing, and steered them to their favoured solicitors.
Exercising their right to buy the freehold may be their best way out of their predicament (as well as considering legal action against their former solicitor).
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
So, this article argues that the non-shuffle was part of a dastardly plot on the part of May's handlers, but I thought the non-shuffle had showed how weak May was because she failed to move big Cabinet ministers who told her they weren't going (eg Hunt, Boris). She loses with either narrative, but it's striking how every narrative is bad for the PM.
The country clearly isn't done with flogging this horse. (Quite possibly deservedly)
Expecting the children of anyone and everyone to have £100k to inherit while the rest of us pick up the tab for their parents' or grandparents' care is also wrong.
In your socialist opinion
Let me try to explain this in words even you might understand - currently my father's care will have to be m sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
No, if you are no longer living in the home and in residential care then the home is sold to pay for it.
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
You could say that but you would be talking bollox
Well it might be Bollox but that in fact is what they have done. Their kids and grandkids may now inherit only £23k between them whereas under the so called dementia tax they would have kept £100k.
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
The most sensible policy would have been to raise the threshold for care costs liability to £100k but keep the home immune from liability for personal at home care costs. That policy would have proved popular and got May an increased majority rather than the lost majority she ended up with
Wasn't this precisely Cameron's policy following Dilnot? And, indeed, may still be what happens as iirc nobody has reversed his proposal which take affect in 2020 I think.
Sky reporting on an attempt by some US/Trump supporters to make a non violent citizens arrest of Sadiq Khan at the opening of a Fabian conference this morning
It does highlight how far Sadiq Khan had gone in creating even more division between the UK and US and all for short term political gain.
It does show Khan as a politician who is too political and not seeing the wider picture.
I despise Trump who is a disaster but we do need to show respect to the US and all this nonsense is in such stark contrast to how Macron and France dealt with Trump.
But Macron is a grown up politician unlike Khan
You are wrong here. Sadiq is speaking on behalf of Londoners - very much in tune with the people.
Racism must be called out and strongly condemned whenever it occurs.
Well done Sadiq - proud of him!
Let's not conflate Trump with the US.
Let's not conflate people and institutions because therein lies the potential for all manner of double standards. Trump may be a deplorable man, but we respect the offlice of the POTUS.
Yes - has Khan or anyone else criticised the office of the POTUS?
Most democratic politicians accept that people will sometimes criticise them. The fact that Trump seems unusually touchy shouldn't mean we all have to shut up. His comments about others are a great deal worse than any comment made by any British politician.
As for investment, investors really pay little attention to politicians squabbling - they look at the fundamentals of the investment prospect.
Kahn has gone too far, effectively telling Trump to get lost. This disrespects both the man and the office. Trump's sins are largely rhetorical. We have rolled out the red carpet for characters whose laguage may have been more restrained but whose deeds have been far worse.
To be fair, Trump has insulted and misrepresented Sadiq Khan on Twitter, particularly in the aftermath of the London Bridge attacks.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Khan effectively banning Trump from London is bizarre and self defeating
It’s what us Londoners want. What is self defeating about calling a racist out - it’s leadership. I wish our country would have the balls to call it out too.
Apologies for being rude but the mood here is very “f*ck off Trump”.
Well maybe Londoners should emerge from their own fundament long enough to realise that they live in the capital of the UK, which performs a ceremonial function on these occasions - it's not *totall
"The report by industry analysts shows that in the last decade, 929 care homes housing 31,201 pensioners have closed, at a time when the population is ageing rapidly."
May and Hunt need to get an urgent grip on this before it becomes hyper-critical.
Comments
Surely this has to be Rio!
Nobody suggested that Obama should be barred from entering the country or even worse barred from visiting his nation's own embassy here.
Taking that attitude will neither keep the new Tory voters in the Midlands, nor keep those excluded in the SE from seeing Corbynism as their only hope.
Disagree with Trump - but agree that the President of the US should be able to come here. We have plenty of heads of state coming here in the past from brutal dictatorships which have appalling human rights records - some even got state visits.
Under the "dementia tax" proposals Dad's assets would have been untouched at £100k - now, assuming he's alive and at £1,000 per week, that's £76,750 of care that somebody is going to have to pay for, That somebody is the Stare or rather the rest of us.
Asking the State to cover £76,750 of my father's care just so I can inherit a nice fat sum is actually the socialist option - let the State provide. Having me or rather my father pay for his own care is, if anything, Thatcherite self-responsibility. People are responsible for their own care and make their own decisions.
If anything you are the socialist - I'm sure Jeremy will make you feel welcome.
He can’t get stuff done in US politics and is odds on not to even complete his term.
Oh and he’s obviously totally untrustworthy so we shouldn’t rely on any promises he gives us.
Trump is a typical vain bully. He dishes it out but cannot take it.
Either way the whole thing is a mess, a a sensible cross-party approach is needed, possibly via a Royal Commission. There’s expectation of a Green Paper from the now-expanded Hunt department of Health and Socal Care in the spring.
He has influence over billions of investments and with the anti Trump tirade coming from Khan why would he not act against London in favour of France or Saudi or anywhere else for that matter
Indeed how many European leaders have attacked Trump in the way Khan has done. Has he been banned from visiting Berlin, Paris, Rome or an other European City
If you are still living at home buy receive personal care then yes your savings can used to pay for it up to a point but the house you still living in should not be taken by the state, a judgement voters clearly made in June.
May's problem was not raisng the assets untouched to £100k but including the value of the home in liability for personal at home care
That will require some courageous leadership from whichever party or parties are in Government at the time but also from the Opposition who must be seen to be supportive of a policy which though painful in the short term is clearly in the interests of the country in the medium and longer term.
*) PFI has been applied in cases where it isn't wise; often for political reasons to keep costs off the book;
*) Some (though not all) PFI contracts were terribly written and have resulted in a mess of obligations.
PFI should be used when it is most applicable: for instance, road projects can work well as it is easy to delineate responsibilities and it is relatively easy to check performance. IMO it's much less useful for operationally complex projects such as schools, and especially hospitals - although even then apparently some PFI schemes have worked well.
Plus of course the Tories are also building hundreds of thousands more affordable homes through targets set for council local plans anyway
As for what people voted for - May's party got 43 per cent but no majority and Cameron and Blair in 2015 and 2005 got sizeable majorities on 36 per cent. More people voted to endorse the dementia tax you could argue than endorsed the EU referendum plans or Iraq war. Quirks of our weird voting system where seats are won by 20 votes.
And you could actually argue by voting against the dementia tax people actually wanted the state to steal more of your house to fund social care as they wanted the threshold to stay at £23k not raise it to £100k.
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/951882329638801408
https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status/951882733122441217
I think (yes I know) that there’s a desire among the general population for the politicians to sort this out between them, and to stop using absurdities to label a policy merely because it’s proposed by politicians of a different party. The current system is completely broken and is adding to NHS winter pressures as people can’t be moved out of the wards. Maybe a ‘recuperation ward’ is needed at the hospital, charged back to the patient?
Which is sort of the problem we have at this moment, indeed...
I would be quite happy for Trump to visit, and as it was Trump himself who decided not to come, not Khan, I am not sure where this outrage bus is going.
As to whether we can trust Trump - we suspended intelligence sharing because he and his administration kept leaking stuff. It’s pretty clear we can’t trust him.
https://politica.elpais.com/elpais/2018/01/12/media/1515754916_940769.html
The Catalan crisis has been very good for them.
Last year was the second in a row in which the number of leavers rose: 81 did so in 2015-16 and 78 quit in 2014-15.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/13/nhs-ambulance-staff-quit-brexit-eu27
Apologies for being rude but the mood here is very “f*ck off Trump”.
Sensible Tories, LDs and Labour are quite willing already to take a tripartite position. Wollaston, Lamb, Kendall have proposed this already:
https://twitter.com/sarahwollaston/status/949004295315316737
And a popular one of ours too.
Reminds me of the story about the 10,000 or So EU staff who had left the NHS post Brexit - which was true. But 13000 had also actually joined as well so there was actually a 3000 net increase. Cos of course young professional people never change jobs or move countries for career progression.
Surprising they didn't use percentages - as they usually do when the actual numbers are tiny numerically.
What the article doesn't tell us is how many EU nationals joined the ambulance service and what was the NET change which is perhaps more relevant. We're there none at all - or even more than the 101 who left? Do let us know Guardian?
And they go on about others being misleading!
Sadly, I think that the Royal Commission is necessary because those in opposition would prefer to hit the government than move towards a sensible compromise.
https://reaction.life/nick-timothy-propped-pm-weird-plot-make-gavin-williamson-tory-leader/
If true (the source seems to be a disgruntled Cabinet minister), perhaps May won’t make it through 2018 after all.
* Look at the shadow to the left of the van of the left. Note the point where that shadow falls on the white stripe of the white line. That part of the right line is at the wrong angle.
* Look at the van on the left and work out which direction it's going. If that was IRL it would be travelling at an angle. The perspective is wrong.
* The left van is identical to the right van.
The right van has been copied and pasted to the left.
The voters of course were happy with the £100k asset threshold what they were not happy with was including the house in the assessment.
Some of the rest will have claims against their solicitors/conveyancers.
Some might have consumer protection claims. Others will be left to argue the red hand rule...
Exercising their right to buy the freehold may be their best way out of their predicament (as well as considering legal action against their former solicitor).
Wasn't a substantial part of the point of Brexit to reduce net immigration?
Patients with severe dementia can't really be cared for at home for long anyway - their relatives can't cope as they need round the clock care which few council care packages will cover even if you aren't self funding. The money goes on residential care - at £60k and more a year. That soon eats up house values outside the south east.
It's the Lib Dems being deliberately dishonest sorry I meanr 'campaigning', or the Guardian being as gormless as usual.
Staff in the Ambulance Trusts are around 25-30000, so this represents a small fluctuation in a sub-group comprising 2-3% of staff being presented as an existential threat.
Ambrosia for gullible remainiacs with Arts Degrees, and complete baloney.
My anecdata is that all but one of our Spanish nurses have left. The remaining one seems quite happy. The Portuguese have all gone, and we have recruited only 1 new Greek, and 1 Italian Doctor, both on 2 year contracts. This is a net loss as 3 Greek Doctors have left. Surely this was the point of Brexit though?
Our ward is short 6 WTE nursing staff, despite repeated advertising.
That's why no-one has to bother to do a good job with their Photoshop. A shoddy one is as good.
I suspect though that May has made a powerful enemy in Greening. There will be a reckoning.
So we need to work out what's fair for those who feel that they ought to save.
'Britain First fan who drove van at London restaurant owner walks free
A Britain First supporter who drove at a curry restaurant owner after saying “I’m going to kill a Muslim” is to walk free after serving his prison sentence while on remand.
The Old Bailey heard that Marek Zakrocki, 48, also gave a Nazi salute and shouted “white power” before driving his van at Kamal Ahmed outside Spicy Night restaurant in Harrow, north-west London, on 23 June last year – the first anniversary of the Brexit vote.
He told a police officer while in his van: “I’m going to kill a Muslim. I’m doing it for Britain. This is how I’m going to help the country. You people cannot do anything.”'
https://tinyurl.com/ya2eeczy
Right: 42%
Wrong: 46%
https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/c5a47m88d9/YG Trackers - EU Tracker Questions_W.pdf
The country clearly isn't done with flogging this horse. (Quite possibly deservedly)
I could be wrong on this though.
https://twitter.com/UKIP/status/952148963309883393
Telegraph:
"The report by industry analysts shows that in the last decade, 929 care homes housing 31,201 pensioners have closed, at a time when the population is ageing rapidly."
May and Hunt need to get an urgent grip on this before it becomes hyper-critical.