Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

I do think Farron's personal stance is weird. Like, if I thought that abortion was the killing of innocent souls, you can bet I wouldn't be liberal about it. I would be burning buildings down (possibly even literally). You'd be talking about the state-sanctioned murder of tens of thousands of innocents every year. Liberalism extends to allowing people different tastes and religions and ways of life, sure. It doesn't extend to allowing people to make the private choice to execute others without recrimination.

Thankfully, I don't think abortion is the murder of innocent souls, which accordingly makes me pro-choice. But I do think that the personally religious/politically liberal on abortion position is pretty hard for any reasonably morally consistent person to hold, and I would be lying if I said it doesn't influence my perception of Farron accordingly.

 

[Spuck-uk]

Which is why Corbyn's occasionally dodgy past (also see: Abbot, McDonnell) is of interest...

I don't think it is controversial to be pro-life in a religious sense ("I wish abortion wasn't needed") but be a liberal and pro-life in practice ("I want every woman to have their own choice and not be judged by others").

Sky interviewers are bulldogs though. I listened in to her podcast later on talking about her exchange and I don't think that is the actual character of the interviewer. Her show tweeted Lib Dem Press afterward thanking them for allowing them to ask tough questions.

Sky hasn't been totally Murdoch'd yet.

I ultimately think Farron knows he's sometimes regarded as bonkers for his religious beliefs. He hasn't yet found the line on how being a Christian and being a Liberal actually work together. Christians don't judge people, and neither do Liberals. (I'd even argue that English Liberalism is closely rooted into Protestantism.)

I see what you're trying to say, but the bolded part is hilariously untrue. Even a cursory glance at history would tell you that.

You have to accept that that pro-life* and pro-choice are, rightly or wrongly, seen as completely diametric, so saying you're both is just terrible optics.


*pro-life is the dumbest term, is anyone pro-death?

 

[Huw_Dawson]

There was a referendum on FPTP and people massively voted to keep it. People are incredibly stupid and easily led.

This is one thing that Labour screwed everyone over on. Electoral reform would help everyone on the left out - why not commit to PR?

I am currently trawling Twitter a lot, reading up on the situation in various constituencies + Lib Dems in general. I am getting a lot happier about our prospects. The Tories are clearly on the decline. As soon as they get the debate back onto Brexit, their lowered stock is going to make them vulnerable to criticism on that front.

I think Crosby has made a severe error in judgement making this campaign personal. All of the negative policies are now very closely aligned with her.

Squeezing newly vulnerable Tory voters and abusing Corbyn's continuing unpopularity on the doorstep = hopefully some good results in our target seats.

 

[Maledict]

I do think Farron's personal stance is weird. Like, if I thought that abortion was the killing of innocent souls, you can bet I wouldn't be liberal about it. I would be burning buildings down (possibly even literally). You'd be talking about the state-sanctioned murder of tens of thousands of innocents every year. Liberalism extends to allowing people different tastes and religions and ways of life, sure. It doesn't extend to allowing people to make the private choice to execute others without recrimination.

Thankfully, I don't think abortion is the murder of innocent souls, which accordingly makes me pro-choice. But I do think that the personally religious/politically liberal on abortion position is pretty hard for any reasonably morally consistent person to hold, and I would be lying if I said it doesn't influence my perception of Farron accordingly.

This is exactly my viewpoint as well, which is why I ultimately put all the Americans talking about the baby holocaust in a box labelled 'women hating fuckwit'. If people honestly felt that abortion was murder, and that a second holocaust was happening, what does it say about them that the most they can do is hold up some shitty signs or try to pass some abusive laws?

Ultimately it's because even the most religious person knows deep down that abortion isn't the same as murder.

 

[PowderedToast]

I can see people who have just graduated or will do so in the next year or so be wholly put off by this policy.

They'd be in the worst place, financially, by both having a huge debt and having to immediately support the students right behind them through their studies via tax.

I'm graduating in a month, why would I not want it to be better for upcoming students than it was for me? Tuition fees are a disgrace and I'd be happy to contribute to their eradication.

 

[Spuck-uk]

This is one thing that Labour screwed everyone over on. Electoral reform would help everyone on the left out - why not commit to PR?

The Labour party around the referendum wasn't exactly left wing, and realised it would have definitely cost them seats. The only major party it would have benefited in share of votes and seats was the Dems, which is why it was their pet project.

 

[Mr. Sam]

The referendum wasn't on proportional representation. It was between First Past The Post and I Can't Believe It's Not First Past The Post (Now With Second Preference!). Clegg got played into burying serious electoral reform.

This is one thing that Labour screwed everyone over on. Electoral reform would help everyone on the left out - why not commit to PR?

If you're one of two parties who have a chance of winning an outright majority - as Labour at least want to appear to be - and self-interested, I can see why you wouldn't want to commit to PR. Turkeys, Christmas, etc.

The irony of any governing party wanting to implement PR will be that they're taking apart the system that installed them in the first place.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This is exactly my viewpoint as well, which is why I ultimately put all the Americans talking about the baby holocaust in a box labelled 'women hating fuckwit'. If people honestly felt that abortion was murder, and that a second holocaust was happening, what does it say about them that the most they can do is hold up some shitty signs or try to pass some abusive laws?

Ultimately it's because even the most religious person knows deep down that abortion isn't the same as murder.

This, I don't agree with. I think the state kills people all the time, be it consciously or through inaction. I mean, imagine how many lives are lost through the UK's choice not to shift 0.1% of GDP from military spending to foreign aid. I think any rational person when considering the impact of the state's actions realises that they must entail some deaths that would not have otherwise happened. Many of those rational persons are moral and politically minded. Despite that, the most any of us do is hold up some shitty signs and try to pass some laws that curtail in part what's happening. What else are we supposed to do? Society and the state make the normal. The ability of any one person to do anything in the face of that is very limited.

 

[Goodlife]

Christians don't judge people

Hahahahahaha
etc

 

[Maledict]

This, I don't agree with. I think the state kills people all the time, be it consciously or through inaction. I mean, imagine how many lives are lost through the UK's choice not to shift 0.1% of GDP from military spending to foreign aid. I think any rational person when considering the impact of the state's actions realises that they must entail some deaths that would not have otherwise happened. Many of those rational persons are moral and politically minded. Despite that, the most any of us do is hold up some shitty signs and try to pass some laws that curtail in part what's happening. What else are we supposed to do? Society and the state make the normal. The ability of any one person to do anything in the face of that is very limited.

Sorry but there is a huge difference between shifting funding round and literal murder (and note it's not even state murder - the state is allowing private contractors to perform it). The language and rhetoric of anti-abortion crusaders literally uses the words 'baby holocaust'. People died in Germany protesting the actions of the nazis and it wasn't even widely known what they were doing. If you honestly believe that the government is allowing the literal murder of hundreds of thousands of babies a year and the best you can do is vote republican then you're a hypocrite and a coward.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sorry but there is a huge difference between shifting funding round and literal murder (and note it's not even state murder - the state is allowing private contractors to perform it). The language and rhetoric of anti-abortion crusaders literally uses the words 'baby holocaust'. People died in Germany protesting the actions of the nazis and it wasn't even widely known what they were doing. If you honestly believe that the government is allowing the literal murder of hundreds of thousands of babies a year and the best you can do is vote republican then you're a hypocrite and a coward.

So what do you want them to do? Mount the resistance? Go out guns and bombs blazing?

 

[Mr. Sam]

I'm on Crab's side here - i.e. these people are scum, and monstrously stupid, but probably sincere.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Sorry but there is a huge difference between shifting funding round and literal murder (and note it's not even state murder - the state is allowing private contractors to perform it). The language and rhetoric of anti-abortion crusaders literally uses the words 'baby holocaust'. People died in Germany protesting the actions of the nazis and it wasn't even widely known what they were doing. If you honestly believe that the government is allowing the literal murder of hundreds of thousands of babies a year and the best you can do is vote republican then you're a hypocrite and a coward.

So you'd prefer to see doctors getting murdered and abortion clinics bombed?

 

[Theonik]

So what do you want them to do? Mount the resistance? Go out guns and bombs blazing?

Second amendment and all that.
E:You shouldn't say that though. After all we had terrorist attacks on planned parenthood just the last couple of years.

 

[Maledict]

So what do you want them to do? Mount the resistance? Go out guns and bombs blazing?

Obviously not, but logically that's what they should be doing. If the government decided that Lgbt people should be killed, or people with ms, I'd do more than campaign with some signs in south lambeth and harass poor women on their way to work which is what the anti abortion crowd do in London right now.

There's a logical disconnect between 'the government is killing hundreds of thousands of babies a year' and their actions . They are either cowards, hypocrites, or don't believe what they are actually saying.

 

[sohois]

Sorry but there is a huge difference between shifting funding round and literal murder (and note it's not even state murder - the state is allowing private contractors to perform it). The language and rhetoric of anti-abortion crusaders literally uses the words 'baby holocaust'. People died in Germany protesting the actions of the nazis and it wasn't even widely known what they were doing. If you honestly believe that the government is allowing the literal murder of hundreds of thousands of babies a year and the best you can do is vote republican then you're a hypocrite and a coward.

But there are plenty of anti abortion crusaders who do take matters into their own hands, by shooting abortion doctors or bombing clinics. I think most people would take the "2 wrongs don't make a right" viewpoint and decide that political action is the only acceptable moral choice.

 

[Maledict]

So you'd prefer to see doctors getting murdered and abortion clinics bombed?

No, see above. My point is that they don't really believe abortion is murdering babies on some level, because their actions don't match their rhetoric. It's a front for the fact they are despicable people who hate women and women having a choice over their own lives.

 

[Ashes]

This is exactly my viewpoint as well, which is why I ultimately put all the Americans talking about the baby holocaust in a box labelled 'women hating fuckwit'. If people honestly felt that abortion was murder, and that a second holocaust was happening, what does it say about them that the most they can do is hold up some shitty signs or try to pass some abusive laws?

Ultimately it's because even the most religious person knows deep down that abortion isn't the same as murder.

I am pro-choice but I'm not pro-abortion, so where does that leave me?

My biggest problem with abortion stems from the idea that it's no big deal at all for some men. e.g. Boyfriends who buy their girlfriends abortions and say: what's the problem? terminating a pregnancy is like taking the morning after pill.

 

[Theonik]

Obviously not, but logically that's what they should be doing. If the government decided that Lgbt people should be killed, or people with ms, I'd do more than campaign with some signs in south lambeth and harass poor women on their way to work which is what the anti abortion crowd do in London right now.

There's a logical disconnect between 'the government is killing hundreds of thousands of babies a year' and their actions . They are either cowards, hypocrites, or don't believe what they are actually saying.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting

 

[Maledict]

But there are plenty of anti abortion crusaders who do take matters into their own hands, by shooting abortion doctors or bombing clinics. I think most people would take the "2 wrongs don't make a right" viewpoint and decide that political action is the only acceptable moral choice.

So if the government starts another holocaust, and decided all Lgbt people should be killed, the response should be to stand outside the buildings where they are killing people and protest?

Again, I don't support these people in any way. I have to walk past their disgusting demo in London regularly. I just think that ultimately, on some level, they either don't believe their own rhetoric or they are unbelievable cowards. I know for damn sure if Lgbt people were being killed in the way they describe abortion I'd be doing more than holding up signs.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

I am pro-choice but I'm not pro-abortion, so where does that leave me?

My biggest problem with abortion stems from the idea that it's no big deal at all for some men. e.g. Boyfriends who buy their girlfriends abortions and say: what's the problem? terminating a pregnancy is like taking the morning after pill.

Who thinks like this. Not you - I mean guys. I have never, ever encountered any adult male that thinks like this.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Hahahahahaha
etc

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." I'm not really that religious anymore, but no, Christianity is a religion of forgiveness not judgement.

There is a VAST chasm between 'this is a sin' and 'this is something you must be judged on'.

Shitty nutjob Christians of all denominations give the various churches a bad name.

Abortion is something that I can't really hold a moral opinion on. It is the definitive women's health issue, it is not a moral one. As a liberal the only position that's possible is "it is anyone's sovereign right to choose for themselves, and it is just that the law is set by scientific consensus rather than opinion".

 

[DavidDesu]

Annual tuition is £9000 at the moment. A maintenance loan on top of that is some £8430 per annum. For a 3 year course that's £52,290 which might not seem like a lot but real debt by the time you leave university is higher because you are charged interest in that time. The median salary in the UK is some £26k the repayment threshold is £21k. In reality it's several years of interest before a student starts paying their loans back at all at some 3-5%. And to actually pay the loan back you need to be earning enough to be paying back over the interest rate.

So say you are £55k in debt by the time you leave university. At 4% interest, you will pay £2.2k of interest a year on that student debt. To start making a dent on the loan you need to pay more than £2.2k in that year. Repayment is set to 9p for every pound you earn over £21k so you need to be making at least £45,445 to start paying it down in principle and you will never repay it at that level. Especially when your debt has grown in the meantime. Remember also that interest rates for student loans are tied to the highest measure of inflation, and that £45k is on the upper 10% of earners.

I'm pretty sure the interest rates are incredibly low, nothing like that. My student loan debt (about 22k - I'm Scottish) grows by maybe £100 a year or something, although I only glance at the yearly statement as it is true that I personally don't really consider it real debt. I currently pay virtually nothing.. the odd month here or there where my overtime means I pay £20 or something, working in shitty retail for past 8 years since leaving. I got a media degree, don't crucify me for my bad choices in life and how shit I am at everything. Would love to earn 20k a year, fuck I'd feel rich haha!

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Obviously not, but logically that's what they should be doing. If the government decided that Lgbt people should be killed, or people with ms, I'd do more than campaign with some signs in south lambeth and harass poor women on their way to work which is what the anti abortion crowd do in London right now.

There's a logical disconnect between 'the government is killing hundreds of thousands of babies a year' and their actions . They are either cowards, hypocrites, or don't believe what they are actually saying.

I don't think you understand the theological issue very well, then. I think most versions of Christianity practiced in the modern era stress the importance of not going an eye for an eye. I mean, you have Romans 12:18 (If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone) or Peter 3:9 (9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing). Christianity is deontological, not utilitarian - you can't break the rules even if doing so would prevent others from breaking the rules.

 

[Maledict]

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." I'm not really that religious anymore, but no, Christianity is a religion of forgiveness not judgement.

There is a VAST chasm between 'this is a sin' and 'this is something you must be judged on'.

Shitty nutjob Christians of all denominations give the various churches a bad name.

Nah, you don't get to run away from this. Christianity is fucking shit on Lgbt rights, and it's not just some nutjobs. The Church of England is still having fits about blessing of gay marriage, or gay bishops. The Catholic Church stills considers us as 'intrinsically disordered'. And let's not talk about the evangelical churches in the states.

You don't get to stand there and throw a 'no true scotsman' statement out about Christianity not judging people, because that's *all* the religion has done for many of us. And it's perfectly fair to be suspicious and wary of someone so tightly wrapped up in their religious beliefs when every example we have is of people like that being dangerous and bigoted.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

No, see above. My point is that they don't really believe abortion is murdering babies on some level, because their actions don't match their rhetoric. It's a front for the fact they are despicable people who hate women and women having a choice over their own lives.

You could say this about so many issues though. e.g policies killing the disabled or unjust military actions. Just don't think it's a fair standard to hold people to. At the end of the day people just want to live their lives and don't have much power to take action into their own hands.

 

[Ashes]

Who thinks like this. Not you - I mean guys. I have never, ever encountered any adult male that thinks like this.

I have heard this which is why I'm stating it as my biggest wtf. Even in debates, when I'm on the pro-choice side, I hear people talk about terminating pregnancies like it was nothing at all.

On the flipside, there are those who don't want to consider forced abortions manslaughter e.g. where the male partner fed the pregnant mother-to-be abortion pills [without her knowledge or consent.].

There are lots of grey areas.

 

[PJV3]

"Let he who is without sin throw the first stone." I'm not really that religious anymore, but no, Christianity is a religion of forgiveness not judgement.

There is a VAST chasm between 'this is a sin' and 'this is something you must be judged on'.

Shitty nutjob Christians of all denominations give the various churches a bad name.

I really dislike religion but Farron doesn't bother me, I don't mind someone believing that God is always right, as long as they accept they are just a regular human being and could be wrong.

I can square the religious-liberal circle if they stick to the keep it to yourself principle.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

Nah, you don't get to run away from this. Christianity is fucking shit on Lgbt rights, and it's not just some nutjobs.

Wasn't talking about LGBT, fwiw, but I agree the current situation is horrendous there.

But to go after a politician, not a religious leader, is a weird jump.

Especially a liberal - an actual liberal - who is currently pitching "open, tolerant and united" as his core campaign pitch.

 

[Ashes]

I really dislike religion but Farron doesn't bother me, I don't mind someone believing that God is always right, as long as they accept they are just a regular human being and could be wrong.

I can square the religious-liberal circle if they stick to the keep it to yourself principle.

I'd go further. I'm not interested in their private life at all. There're there to represent all the different voices of their constituencies, so I want to see how they balance all kinds of views and 'vote' in parliament.

We're not really going to have an abortion vote any time soon, so I don't know what the media's problem is with Farron in this regard. We're on the right side of history as far as that side of things is concerned.

 

[Maledict]

I don't think you understand the theological issue very well, then. I think most versions of Christianity practiced in the modern era stress the importance of not going an eye for an eye. I mean, you have Romans 12:18 (If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone) or Peter 3:9 (9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing). Christianity is deontological, not utilitarian - you can't break the rules even if doing so would prevent others from breaking the rules.

It's not eye for an eye, it's literally preventing the murder of thousands of people (apparently). I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm extremely glad these people aren't doing this - they are loathesome bigots! But given how much of the bible and Christianity's teaching gets ignored constantly by so called religious people, it seems odd that when they talk about what is (supposedly, in their eyes), the most evil crime since the actual holocaust their response is so...pedestrian by comparison. I mean, even that goes way too far clearly, but I still don't feel their actions match their rhetoric.

Igoing to drop it now though as it's hugely derailing the thread!

 

[Ashes]

Igoing to drop it now though as it's hugely derailing the thread!

To be fair, it's on topic, because that is what one of the major leaders is being attacked for,

 

[Huw_Dawson]

I appreciated your view though Maledict fwiw, I think I am largely on your side morally.

I think that Farron is one of those Christians that keeps his faith to himself these days. He used to be more open, but I suspect he fears bringing his party (and his friends in it) into disrepute if he allows himself to get bogged down in religious debate. Not a fun place to be in, but the lad's got broad shoulders. I think he will be fine. And I refuse to criticise someone's religious beliefs unless they cause harm to others.

He does say some bonkers shit sometimes tho

EDIT: One not bonkers thing he just said on a stump BTW is about the whole dementia tax thing: if you are an elderly couple and only one of you has to go into care, your home is still going to be sold off to pay for it. Damn.

 

[nekkid]

I'm graduating in a month, why would I not want it to be better for upcoming students than it was for me? Tuition fees are a disgrace and I'd be happy to contribute to their eradication.

I'm not saying you don't want it to be better for them, but you might not want it to be worse for you, which it will be.

My own stance is that the pricing is out of control, but there should be a cost.

 

[Ashes]

I think personally, with the explosion of the free online learning model, more should be down by private companies to train up their staff to the next level. I mean literally paying them overtime to go through an online course would be cheaper then what they already do i.e. send them to training centres.

That is of course for those who think that education's only purpose is to be a factory belt for for profit companies.

 

[King_Moc]

One not bonkers thing he just said on a stump BTW is about the whole dementia tax thing: if you are an elderly couple and only one of you has to go into care, your home is still going to be sold off to pay for it. Damn.

This is all kinds of fucked up. Damn indeed.

 

[JonathanEx]

Light-hearted election comedy update: Vote Now Show was back last night on Radio 4, fun roundup of the state of things so far: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08qy4j5

 

[zorlaczerohero]

I'm not saying you don't want it to be better for them, but you might not want it to be worse for you, which it will be.

My own stance is that the pricing is out of control, but there should be a cost.

Worse than what? Worse than the Tories getting in? Unless they fall straight into an 80k a year post and never have kids or use the NHS they are unlikely to be worse off. Slightly worse off than students graduating after them yes, but it's a small sacrifice and I could see previous student debt getting wiped out if Corbyn balances the books, something the Tories have been failing at.

 

[Theonik]

I'm pretty sure the interest rates are incredibly low, nothing like that. My student loan debt (about 22k - I'm Scottish) grows by maybe £100 a year or something, although I only glance at the yearly statement as it is true that I personally don't really consider it real debt. I currently pay virtually nothing.. the odd month here or there where my overtime means I pay £20 or something, working in shitty retail for past 8 years since leaving. I got a media degree, don't crucify me for my bad choices in life and how shit I am at everything. Would love to earn 20k a year, fuck I'd feel rich haha!

While you're at uni and until the next fiscal year starts the rate is RPI plus 3% for 2016/2017 that's 4.6%. When I started that was closer to 5.4%.
e: In practice it is even worse, because it will compound over 3-4 years.

On the next April after you graduate, they charge you RPI with a sliding scale which goes up to 3% which for this year will be 4.6% (levels at about 41k now) but might raise higher for 2017/2018 due to RPI inflation being projected to get as high as 3.6% (so students will be paying as much as 6.6% interest rate.)

http://www.slc.co.uk/services/interest-rates.aspx

My example was simply meant for illustration purposes but you should remember being in Scotland and having studied ages ago you are much better off with regards to the money you owe. Since there is no correlation between the size of the loans and your future pay new students are just less likely to ever pay it.

 

[Huw_Dawson]

LD combo on the BBC News feed - Norman Lamb pointing out that that £100k pile of cash you will have afterwards is not exactly guaranteed either. You still have to drum up the money for accommodation at a care home.

Hell, let's add the fail train mega combo - if you end up in a care home you are probably going to want to sell off your home anyway, as the insurance model you will be buying into will not be as good as actually selling off your home. You have the luxury of waiting for a buyer for the home's actual worth. And what about the insurance premium you will have to pay to be on the scheme? Where does that money come from?

It turns out that exposing social care costs to the private sector is a really, really bad idea. It is May's poll tax and is now on course to bring down her majority should the swing away from the Tories continue until polling day.

 

[*Splinter]

They are either cowards, hypocrites, or don't believe what they are actually saying.

Well to be fair when the alternative is to go to war against your own government I don't think "cowardice" is going to be an unusual (or unreasonable) response.

In your LGBT comparison I think you would see much more widespread outrage (including protests/rioting), but let's pretend the pro LGBT movement was only as supported as the pro-life movement currently is in the US. Would you join the protestors outside the clinic or would you be the one to go further and start bombing places?

I'd do the former, and if that makes me a coward then so be it: I'm a coward.

Igoing to drop it now though as it's hugely derailing the thread!

Eh it's an interesting topic, hope you aren't feeling piled up on.

 

[hodgy100]

im so lucky that i started uni before the change. having such a low interest rate means that even at my entry level job i am in fact slowly paying off my loan.

 

[Dougald]

im so lucky that i started uni before the change. having such a low interest rate means that even at my entry level job i am in fact slowly paying off my loan.

I started the year before top-up fees, so not even the ridiculous new limit. Thanks to the low interest rate I will actually have it repaid in the next two years, so it'll have taken 10 years since I graduated

I earn a reasonable salary too. If I'd graduated with current levels of debt and interest rates I'd never repay the loan. A lot of these are going to be written off

 

[Maledict]

Eh it's an interesting topic, hope you aren't feeling piled up on.

No not at all. It's just that I think we are all in agreement on the basic premise (women should have a right to chose), and I'm arguing a fairly obscure point about motives that doesn't really relate to the election at all - it's just an intellectual exercise which seemed to be dominating the thread.

I'd much rather be teasing Huw about the fact his leader is in a cult! ;-)

 

[Halph n Halph]

LD combo on the BBC News feed - Norman Lamb pointing out that that £100k pile of cash you will have afterwards is not exactly guaranteed either. You still have to drum up the money for accommodation at a care home.

Hell, let's add the fail train mega combo - if you end up in a care home you are probably going to want to sell off your home anyway, as the insurance model you will be buying into will not be as good as actually selling off your home. You have the luxury of waiting for a buyer for the home's actual worth. And what about the insurance premium you will have to pay to be on the scheme? Where does that money come from?
It turns out that exposing social care costs to the private sector is a really, really bad idea. It is May's poll tax and is now on course to bring down her majority should the swing away from the Tories continue until polling day.

I was under the impression that once total assets are only £100,000 , the goverment/ council pays for residential care

 

[Huw_Dawson]

BTW I am calling it now: UKIP and the Greens both get less than 2.5% this election. Lucas will probably hold her seat but I think any Kipper not going to the Tories is going to stay at home. The more the Tories get squeezed, the more Kippers stay at home.

I do slightly feel bad for the Greens, as they are basically a socialist version of the Lib Dems. But it's clear that Corbyn has stolen their thunder and environmentalism is just not a concern this election.

EDIT:

Ba ha ha ha ha

 

[Burai]

I think personally, with the explosion of the free online learning model, more should be down by private companies to train up their staff to the next level. I mean literally paying them overtime to go through an online course would be cheaper then what they already do i.e. send them to training centres.

That is of course for those who think that education's only purpose is to be a factory belt for for profit companies.

Yeah, I think that has merit. I learned more about networks from a £10 Udemy video course than I did in "proper" education.

I think Labour have really missed a trick here. What they should have done was incentivise skills that the public services are crying out for. By handing out free HE for everyone, his opponents will seize on the idea of people's tax money paying for arts and humanities degrees.

 

[Kotetsu534]

LD combo on the BBC News feed - Norman Lamb pointing out that that £100k pile of cash you will have afterwards is not exactly guaranteed either. You still have to drum up the money for accommodation at a care home.

Hell, let's add the fail train mega combo - if you end up in a care home you are probably going to want to sell off your home anyway, as the insurance model you will be buying into will not be as good as actually selling off your home. You have the luxury of waiting for a buyer for the home's actual worth. And what about the insurance premium you will have to pay to be on the scheme? Where does that money come from?

It turns out that exposing social care costs to the private sector is a really, really bad idea. It is May's poll tax and is now on course to bring down her majority should the swing away from the Tories continue until polling day.

There's an anonymous post floating around the Guardian's comment pages supposedly attributed to someone who works in the City and saw the development of this policy. It may well be a load of bullshit. But if it's right about the following, this policy could be very nasty in the long run:

You wont have to sell your house PROVIDED that you purchase an insurance product to cover your social care. The "premiums" would be recovered from the equity after the house has been sold and the Insurance company will have a lien on the house and can force a sale if it wants to. So your offspring cant keep it on the market for long in order to get the best price.
The real kicker in this is that in order to encourage the industry to market these products the government guaranteed that there would be no cap on the premiums.

In other words, sure, you won't pay your last £100k of estate to care homes as care fees, but a chunk of it will be eaten away in accrued insurance premiums and fees on the policy you had to take out not to sell your home. If one elderly person has to go into a care home while his or her surviving partner remains resident in their house, will he or she have to take out such a policy if his or her estate is >£100k? And if so, how tightly will the terms of these policies be regulated? If it's a wild west, there's going to be some sad stories coming down the line.

The worst part of all this is that it's totally unnecessary. There are plenty of existing policy proposals that would solve the problem much more fairly. If I was running the Labour campaign, I'd steal Cameron's capped fees policy and hammer this relentlessly down the final stretch - you're losing by ridiculous margins among over 50s, and this is a blinking weak point with that demographic.

 

[Mr. Sam]

BTW I am calling it now: UKIP and the Greens both get less than 2.5% this election. Lucas will probably hold her seat but I think any Kipper not going to the Tories is going to stay at home. The more the Tories get squeezed, the more Kippers stay at home.

National vote share is pretty much a non-factor for the Greens in so much as one seat would be a good election and two, which is eminently doable, would be an excellent one.

 

[PJV3]

Osborne seems to be saying the Tories will do a u-turn on the dementia tax, it's not very strong leadership from May if they do.