Support NeoGAF

[Huw_Dawson]

All things considered I'm amazed Farron and Cable (on QT now) are actually getting applauses for a second referendum.

The polling generally suggested that most were against it.

 

[Royal_Phalanx]

All things considered I'm amazed Farron and Cable (on QT now) are actually getting applauses for a second referendum.

The polling generally suggested that most were against it.

Depends on the audience really.

 

[Little Old Man]

Former editor of the Telegraph. is a 'climate change skeptic'. Shock horror alert.

All things considered I'm amazed Farron and Cable (on QT now) are actually getting applauses for a second referendum.

The polling generally suggested that most were against it.

As above. I would want a second referendum to happen in principle, but for Red or Blue, it would go down like a lead balloon with voters at large in the current political climate. The audience tonight seemed keen on Labour's attitude to the elderly, and social care, but then seemed to boo more than they cheered regarding Corbyn specifically. Plus (I think because they know it will never happen), they haven't actually specified what would happen in the event of a 'no' answer. Go back to discussions with the EU? Just carry on with EU membership circa 2016/2017? I suspect it is the former, but still.

 

[Spaghetti]

All things considered I'm amazed Farron and Cable (on QT now) are actually getting applauses for a second referendum.

The polling generally suggested that most were against it.

A QT audience will clap for fucking anything.

 

[Acorn]

All things considered I'm amazed Farron and Cable (on QT now) are actually getting applauses for a second referendum.

The polling generally suggested that most were against it.

C'mon it's QT. Plus how people act in a group vs putting an x in a box is very different.

 

[cartesian]

The Conservatives' social care policy is a punch in the gut. It's just an awful policy. I can't get over how viscerally disappointed I am. A small part of me was thinking about voting for the Conservatives - I'm so angry that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Labour just to do anything I can to register my anger.

I don't particularly like the Tory Party but I was hoping that Theresa May (and Nick Timothy) might back up their 'life is hard for a lot of people outside Westminster' rhetoric. Seeing as 7 June is a foregone conclusion, I've actually been more keen to see the Conservatives manifesto than the final voting results. My hope was that May/Timothy might use their strong position to finally spend a bit of time and money on the social care system. For all the bad they might do, I was crossing my fingers that this might be a silver lining. May-ism's upside. Conservatism for JAMs...

Social care isn't a well understood issue but it frightens the life out of me. I'm not a carer and both my parents are working and in good health - but God knows what the future holds. If one of them ends up with dementia, we're sunk. This may affect any one of us in the years to come. We are all at risk.

Care is is an area where life is extremely hard for so many families and where costs can be financially crippling. The level of uncertainty and the scale of the expense makes it almost impossible to plan ahead. You just have to cross your fingers. And anyway, what's the point in saving money if you're going to be brought down by care bills anyway?

We would never in a million years ask cancer patients to 'make a bigger contribution to their costs' in the interests of 'fairness'. So why is May doing this with social care? Why are we looting our most vulnerable? I am scared for the future of my parents. For all I know they may need care one day and if that happens I know that it will financially destroy all I've worked to save.

It's utterly unacceptable that we are leaving the costs of our elderly and vulnerable to individuals. At this level, such costs are ruinous and unfair. State intervention is needed. The minimum we need is a cap on user costs to ensure that families aren't endlessly plundered and brought to ruin by relatives with complex long-term care needs. Yet not only have the Conservatives abandoned the cap on care costs, they have set a payment threshold such that the great majority of homeowners in this country will be liable to huge expense. It's dressed to look good - in fact it's a catastrophe.

It's an utterly disgusting policy. I'm genuinely shocked by how ghastly and cold hearted it is. It is the abandonment of people with dementia and beyond. And they'll get away with it. Most people won't understand just how punishing this will be. But this policy will certainly result in large scale human misery and financial hardship.

I try to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, to see reason in what they said - I was even willing to consider voting for them - but this is one of the most brutal policies I've seen in a manifesto. As far as I am concerned they may as well have pledged to charge cancer patients for their drugs.

This is a despicable policy and the Conservatives have completely lost my trust and confidence.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

C'mon it's QT. Plus how people act in a group vs putting an x in a box is very different.

True indeed, I was mostly just expecting immediate "denial of the referendum!" comments.

 

[D4Danger]

 

[pulsemyne]

Man newsnight was fucking hilarious. Micheal Fallon got decimated and was forced to admit that there were uncosted policies in the tory manifesto. He looked a right tit. So much so that the presenter was laughing at him.

 

[Acorn]

Who was the last PM with a beard? Tache doesn't count. Full beard.

And was America still a colony then?

 

[RedSparrows]

God fucking damn I hate the Mail.

Support May and the Tories, fine, free country.

But the smug righteous (and conditional, never forget the attack dogs lie in wait) drivel they slather over their pets is nauseating.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Who was the last PM with a beard? Tache doesn't count. Full beard.

And was America still a colony then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury

 

[boxoctosis]

The Conservatives' social care policy is a punch in the gut. It's just an awful policy. I can't get over how viscerally disappointed I am. A small part of me was thinking about voting for the Conservatives - I'm so angry that I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Labour just to do anything I can to register my anger.

I don't particularly like the Tory Party but I was hoping that Theresa May (and Nick Timothy) might back up their 'life is hard for a lot of people outside Westminster' rhetoric. Seeing as 7 June is a foregone conclusion, I've actually been more keen to see the Conservatives manifesto than the final voting results. My hope was that May/Timothy might use their strong position to finally spend a bit of time and money on the social care system. For all the bad they might do, I was crossing my fingers that this might be a silver lining. May-ism's upside. Conservatism for JAMs...

Social care isn't a well understood issue but it frightens the life out of me. I'm not a carer and both my parents are working and in good health - but God knows what the future holds. If one of them ends up with dementia, we're sunk. This may affect any one of us in the years to come. We are all at risk.

Care is is an area where life is extremely hard for so many families and where costs can be financially crippling. The level of uncertainty and the scale of the expense makes it almost impossible to plan ahead. You just have to cross your fingers. And anyway, what's the point in saving money if you're going to be brought down by care bills anyway?

We would never in a million years ask cancer patients to 'make a bigger contribution to their costs' in the interests of 'fairness'. So why is May doing this with social care? Why are we looting our most vulnerable? I am scared for the future of my parents. For all I know they may need care one day and if that happens I know that it will financially destroy all I've worked to save.

It's utterly unacceptable that we are leaving the costs of our elderly and vulnerable to individuals. At this level, such costs are ruinous and unfair. State intervention is needed. The minimum we need is a cap on user costs to ensure that families aren't endlessly plundered and brought to ruin by relatives with complex long-term care needs. Yet not only have the Conservatives abandoned the cap on care costs, they have set a payment threshold such that the great majority of homeowners in this country will be liable to huge expense. It's dressed to look good - in fact it's a catastrophe.

It's an utterly disgusting policy. I'm genuinely shocked by how ghastly and cold hearted it is. It is the abandonment of people with dementia and beyond. And they'll get away with it. Most people won't understand just how punishing this will be. But this policy will certainly result in large scale human misery and financial hardship.

I try to give the Conservatives the benefit of the doubt, to see reason in what they said - I was even willing to consider voting for them - but this is one of the most brutal policies I've seen in a manifesto. As far as I am concerned they may as well have pledged to charge cancer patients for their drugs.

This is a despicable policy and the Conservatives have completely lost my trust and confidence.

It's a difficult one. For a start comparing dementia and cancer is specious in my view. Dementia causes large scale human misery and financial hardship. Its a disease that doesn't kill quickly but incurs massive ongoing care costs quite quickly. What to do?

We as a nation need to have a better solution than present as to how to deal with the massive costs that rising longevity have left us.

My dad has dementia, my mam has accepted that a huge amount of their capital is going to be eaten up by it. I don't think personally that I'd expect state protection for that capital. Not any more. The sums just don't add up.

Personally I'm in favour of assisted suicide, which I think is the logical end game here. Some way off though.

 

[TimmmV]

stuff

stuff

Yeah, these basically.

Its great the triple lock would be scrapped, and there should definitely be means tested fuel allowance (and lets face it, pensions should be too) - both of those are good practical point of view and also from a maybe-old-people-should-stop-fucking-everything-up point of view

However the social care tax is horrendous.

It also makes me really mad how the Tories can talk about "death taxes" and raise the threshold on inheritance tax - but then do this. It just seems like a really transparent attempt to transfer wealth away from the working and middle classes

While I personally think that low tax inheritance is a shit concept, the reality of the current situation is that a lot of people can only afford housing now if they get an inheritance from a parent/grandparent - and with only £100k being protected, that wont go very far whatsoever.

 

[Dabanton]

God fucking damn I hate the Mail.

Support May and the Tories, fine, free country.

But the smug righteous (and conditional, never forget the attack dogs lie in wait) drivel they slather over their pets is nauseating.

The Mail need May for now, because they think she'll get them the crazy Brexit they want.

Now if she fouls that up expect the knives to come out very quickly like they did when David Cameron displeased them.

 

[Acorn]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gascoyne-Cecil,_3rd_Marquess_of_Salisbury

Thank you. 1902.

 

[Pancake Mix]

Thank you. 1902.

Hmm, but what about the last Prime Minister with a beard who wasn't in the House of Lords at the time?

 

[D4Danger]

this guy from question time though

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865337811062235136

 

[Spaghetti]

So what's the consensus on the debate tonight? I missed it and I'm mainly just picking up hot takes from Twitter.

 

[pulsemyne]

So what's the consensus on the debate tonight? I missed it and I'm mainly just picking up hot takes from Twitter.

Nothing of major interest. The real story of the night was Micheal Fallon getting his arse handed too him on newsnight and blowing a huge hole in the tory manifesto.

 

[digoutyoursoul]

I lost a bit of love for my country a long time ago, it didn't affect me or my family & friends fortunately but seeing such support for the likes of the bedroom tax, which made a number of people's lives a misery including suicides and then seeing the policy cheered on in the Houses of Parliament, I couldn't believe it in all honesty.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

So what's the consensus on the debate tonight? I missed it and I'm mainly just picking up hot takes from Twitter.

Most of the party leaders made good points except Nuttall who looked like a joke. The entire media afterwards decried it as a waste of time.

Personally I think Farron was able to make good points, but given the overall scale of the event was so badly compromised by May and Corbyn dodging it I think it will not make a difference on the campaign trail.

As such my expectation is that the polls as they stand now will probably not be moving much before election day. So for my lot in the LDs the only thing to do is crack on in the defences and our set of target seats to make sure we have a squadron of MPs to work with for the next five years.

Frankly my main concern now is that this election feels like a depressing formality. A few gains for the LDs if we're lucky, possibly those gains are equalled by losses, especially to the Tory surge. And I don't think there is that much voter engagement. This feels like a coronation of ten years of Tory rule and perpetual hard left control of the principle opposition - a return to the 'sick man of Europe' days of the 70s.

 

[Theonik]

a return to the 'sick man of Europe' days of the 70s.

People voted for this when leave won. It is inevitable.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

People voted for this when leave won. It is inevitable.

My hope is that my party can buck this past week's disappointing polls and grab a few more seats. It is frustrating that this is just down to squeeze and shutout of debate.

I really shudder to think what is going to happen if Brexit goes tits up and there isn't a strong voice out there to oppose the government.

 

[blazinglord]

Who cares about scrubber kids let em starve

The 'scrubber kids' will still get free school lunches if their household income is low. In other words, school dinners will go back to being means-tested like it used to be.

At the moment, poor students who don't have a decent breakfast (if anything at all), will have to wait until lunchtime before they get something to eat with every other child (rich and poor). Under this policy, everyone will get a free breakfast and then at lunchtime the poor students will get free school dinner as well.

I believe the initial policy of free school dinners for every child came about because of the Jamie Oliver gimmick and students having 'unhealthy' packed lunches. Poor students have been entitled to free school dinners since forever (even back when I was at school which was a long time ago).

 

[daviyoung]

this guy from question time though

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865337811062235136

yah absolutely

 

[QuicheFontaine]

You think? Where's the proof.

I just checked the Netherlands and it costs 237 euros to apply for a non-eu spouse visa. They have an 18,000 euro minimum salary, but there is an alternate route called 'verification against eu law' which has a much lower threshold. It's significantly easier than applying in the UK.

Based on Theresa May's previous attempts to raise the threshold to raise the threshold to £25,700, my guess is she'll go for a similar amount, likely more (and with kids that threshold goes up to £37,000 for one kid, £49,000 for two).

This combined with the upfront costs of the visa fee (£2k) and IHS surcharge (which will be £1,800) will prevent the majority of people from bringing over non EU spouses. And then there's the cost of FLR(M) (another £3k - though this'll likely be more in a few years) and ILR (£2.3k).

I don't think many people will be able to afford this, effectively penalising you if you made the 'mistake' of falling for a non-eu partner.

I sincerely hope EU residents won't have to go through this bullshit, but I wouldn't put it past May.

Amazing. "Where's the proof?". Googles the Dutch system, finds out the income requirement is almost exactly the same. Moves on.

 

[Chinner]

this guy from question time though

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865337811062235136

Probably another tory plant.

 

[twofoldd]

Amazing. "Where's the proof?". Googles the Dutch system, finds out the income requirement is almost exactly the same. Moves on.

Did you ignore the part of my post where I said you can use the 'verification against EU law' if you earn less than the threshold?

The Dutch visa costs significantly less too, making it easier for lower earners to apply. The upfront costs are soon going to be £3-4k - people earning £18,600 can't afford that.

 

[EmiPrime]

this guy from question time though

https://twitter.com/bbcquestiontime/status/865337811062235136

"Brightest and the best". What an arrogant entitled prick.

 

[Chinner]

Did you ignore the part of my post where I said you can use the 'verification against EU law' if you earn less than the threshold?

The Dutch visa costs significantly less too, making it easier for lower earners to apply. The upfront costs are soon going to be £4k - people earning £18,600 can't afford that.

They could simply work harder and earn that extra amount.

 

[RenditMan]

Way to move the goalposts, champ. I'm sure that's a solace to the families being torn apart by these policies.

I'm sure it's difficult.

I've got family in New Zealand, if I wanted to move there, which I don't, said family has to agree to pay for any costs I incur to the state if it goes pear shaped.

This has been ruinous for many families out there, but it's just the way it is.

Saying that, I don't agree with having high entry requirements for some immigration and non for others. I'd like to see everyone treated the same, with overall less requirements for everyone.

 

[twofoldd]

I'm sure it's difficult.

I've got family in New Zealand, if I wanted to move there, which I don't, said family has to agree to pay for any costs I incur to the state if it goes pear shaped.

This has been ruinous for many families out there, but it's just the way it is.

Just checked the New Zealand visa site because I was curious and, unless I'm reading this wrong, there doesn't appear to be a minimum income threshold for their partner visa and the visa costs $1,250nzd (around £665). Quite different to the UK.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Feeling a bit more chirpy this morning. Farron on BBC Breakfast, and all in all he did pretty well on the debate, as compromised as it was. (And naturally hacks from the left and right will decry it as pointless...)

What I think may have happened thanks to the Tory manifesto being a bit of a squib and opening themselves to attack is that the focus has shifted away from 'strong and stable Brexit' for a few days. This should start to bring the Tory lead down, which is good for everyone other than those that plot for Corbyn's removal as Labour leader.

 

[teeny]

Could someone please explain the Tory social care policy? I'm having a hard time understanding it's impact.

They are proposing that free social care will only be provided once all assets, including residential property, total less than £100,000, is that correct?

What is the current threshold for social care? I thought it was lower than that and many people sell their properties to fund their care currently.

Don't get me wrong, I can see how such a policy would ravage the wealth of working and middle class families but I am also acutely aware that long term illness already does.

 

[Maledict]

The 'scrubber kids' will still get free school lunches if their household income is low. In other words, school dinners will go back to being means-tested like it used to be.

At the moment, poor students who don't have a decent breakfast (if anything at all), will have to wait until lunchtime before they get something to eat with every other child (rich and poor). Under this policy, everyone will get a free breakfast and then at lunchtime the poor students will get free school dinner as well.

I believe the initial policy of free school dinners for every child came about because of the Jamie Oliver gimmick and students having 'unhealthy' packed lunches. Poor students have been entitled to free school dinners since forever (even back when I was at school which was a long time ago).

Basically this. The issue of kids from disadvantaged backgrounds not having a breakfast at all is far more important. It's a huge scandal that In this country, in this day and age, hundreds of thousands of children aren't having any breakfast at all. It has a direct impact on their performance at school. I actually think this is a fairly sound policy.

 

[satriales]

Could someone please explain the Tory social care policy? I'm having a hard time understanding it's impact.

They are proposing that free social care will only be provided once all assets, including residential property, total less than £100,000, is that correct?

What is the current threshold for social care? I thought it was lower than that and many people sell their properties to fund their care currently.

Don't get me wrong, I can see how such a policy would ravage the wealth of working and middle class families but I am also acutely aware that long term illness already does.

From what I understand, currently the threshhold is only £23k but it doesn't include the value of your house if you get care at home. Under the new scheme it would include your house.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It is an attack on a massive block of wealth that is still in the hands of normal citizens - private non-mortgaged property.

 

[teeny]

From what I understand, currently the threshhold is only £23k but it doesn't include the value of your house if you get care at home. Under the new scheme it would include your house.

Right, got you, so obviously the inclusion of the house would make a massive difference and this would affect those who receive care at home rather than those who have moved into residential or care homes.

This would therefore hit those who suffer from dementia and the like the hardest and would also put additional pressure on any family members acting as carers.

It is an attack on a massive block of wealth that is still in the hands of normal citizens - private non-mortgaged property.

Understood, I did not appreciate that they were talking about people still living at home versus those who sell their properties and move into residential care.

 

[empyrean]

Ken Clarke is apparently delighted that the Tory manifesto isn't costed.

So it's fine for them to not provide coatings but woe betide anyone else dare not have something that is air right in terms of cost.

 

[*Splinter]

From what I understand, currently the threshhold is only £23k but it doesn't include the value of your house if you get care at home. Under the new scheme it would include your house.

So how many people get care at home compared to moving into residential care?

It sounds like anyone moving into care will end up with £100k instead of £23k... Do I have that right?

 

[travisbickle]

Foregoing means testing for the winter fuel allowance is so you don't get a system balls up and a granny freezing to death in her Burnley bungalow. Anything means tested just constantly fucks up, it's not worth the hassle when you're risking the elderly.

But you can ask to be removed from the allowance, I'd love to see the demographics of retirees who do choose.

 

[Ghost]

It is an attack on a massive block of wealth that is still in the hands of normal citizens - private non-mortgaged property.

Exactly, it seems like a 'honest' policy as the Mail put it until you realise the wealthy don't use state funded social care, so they will continue passing on 100% of their massive wealth while the middle classes, and a lot of people who consider themselves above that at the moment, will leave their kids with probably on average less than 1/3 of what they built.

Basically the only people allowed to moan about Labour's tax increases above 80k now are people not planning to have kids.

 

[Halph n Halph]

It is an attack on a massive block of wealth that is still in the hands of normal citizens - private non-mortgaged property.

It benefits those who need residential care right?

 

[Maledict]

Ken Clarke is apparently delighted that the Tory manifesto isn't costed.

So it's fine for them to not provide coatings but woe betide anyone else dare not have something that is air right in terms of cost.

Can you imagine the headlines if labour had proposed what the tories are doing? The Mail would practically combust on the newsstand!

It will be interesting to see what my parents think as life long tories. They are very big fans of May, but at the same time their house is our inheritance and they've been really clear about that and making arrangements for it. This plan would destroy that if either of them got dementia.

 

[Theonik]

Ken Clarke is apparently delighted that the Tory manifesto isn't costed.

So it's fine for them to not provide coatings but woe betide anyone else dare not have something that is air right in terms of cost.

'but the Tories are good at the economy and labour is spend spend spend' - some moron that doesn't know history.

Can you imagine the headlines if labour had proposed what the tories are doing? The Mail would practically combust on the newsstand!

It will be interesting to see what my parents think as life long tories. They are very big fans of May, but at the same time their house is our inheritance and they've been really clear about that and making arrangements for it. This plan would destroy that if either of them got dementia.

You should explain this to them. Too many people let this kind of stuff slide.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Hard to feel even a shred of sympathy for the old people crying about this when they were happy to stay quiet as the government devastated both mental health and disabled services.

Now we're meant to be upset? Fuck outta here, old fuckers thought they were untouchable because of their power as voters, they created this mess and now they have to deal with the consequences of their actions. These fuckers thought they could steal the future of millions of people and not have to pay a price...

 

[Huw_Dawson]

It benefits those who need residential care right?

No. The original pitch when the Lib Dems were in coalition was to cap the cost of social care at about £75,000. This instead will continue squeezing you dry until you only have £100,000 left in assets. It represents an increase in the threshold for means testing if you are in private care, but I have yet to see any movement on one of the big issues of private care which is the payment of room and board, and those in private care will now have chunks of their home's value stripped from them in addition to having their other assets stripped to pay for care.

My hope is that voters old and young will take this policy for what it is - the Tories being honest with you that they can take you for granted - and choose to vote for a party that has an actual plan for fairly paying for social care without punishing the most ill members of our society.

This is part of my whole hope that voters will see an unworkable manifesto and unpalatable leadership by Labour, look across at a grinning Tory with a host of painful policies, and choose a different path.

(Especially in seats we have a good chance of winning)

 

[Goodlife]

Foregoing means testing for the winter fuel allowance is so you don't get a system balls up and a granny freezing to death in her Burnley bungalow. Anything means tested just constantly fucks up, it's not worth the hassle when you're risking the elderly.

But you can ask to be removed from the allowance, I'd love to see the demographics of retirees who do choose.

I'm pretty sure my parents have asked (or in the process of finding out how) to be removed.

They are well off, got a few properties mortgage free they are getting rented income from, private pensions etc. They don't need / want that money and it does seem a bit mental for them to be receiving / able to receive it.

However, I agree with your point, means testing anything just seems like a recipe for disaster that will likely cause a good few fuck ups. With the extra administration as well, I do wonder how much it will actually save.... if only the Tories had put costings in their manifesto....

 

[Daffy Duck]

This is real?

Hah.