Labour ?

Dave***t posted:

Wenger, austerity is absolutely NOT the only way. It is an ideological choice. From an open letter, signatories of which included a Bank of England monetary policy advisor: '...opposition to austerity is actually mainstream economics, even backed by the conservative IMF.'

This is why the household budget metaphor, although politically clearly very effective, is a load of bollocks. How do you think the economy was brought back on track from possibly its worst ever position in the aftermath of WW2? Hint - it was the precise opposite of de-funding the NHS.

Dave - let's not overlook the IMF's bail out of the UK in 1976 (at the time it was a Labour govt) and the inherited fiscal position in 2010.

I assume what you allude to above is the benefits of adopting a Keynesian approach in stimulating growth which will, in effect, pay for itself (more likely serve to balance financial ratios and not absolutes in terms of carried national debt). More than a few monetarists would disagree. And I don't think it's fair to lump blame on Osborne around the deficit - the last few years have defied many forecasters.

The issues for me in this are:

1- Given all the issues around Brexit, the euro and the change in economic paradigm now (the current global circumstances are unprecedented), why would we want to continue to load UK plc with even more debt for the longer term and the associated risks?  

...wanna flirt with the same situation as Greece? 

2- somehow, the whole social care piece has got to be reconciled to our aging population. The nettle has to be grasped.

I must admit I struggle with the notion that someone can own a valuable home and see their social care heavily covered by the state. Yes, there will be geographic considerations and issues to be solved/compromises reached - that's surely life as it now is?

In my mind, all the noise around the debates boils down to which management team do I want to run UK plc - for it's inevitable there will be many more twists and turns (outside Brexit issues) to come, and many of the manifesto pledges will get left to one side. For me protest voting in such circumstances sans VR is largely academic in the way the House of Commons runs (sadly) - not that the politicos see it this way. And I hope the voting isn't swayed on micro-issues e.g. tuition fees and alike.

It's all very much the best of a bad job cum choice.

Just some of my thoughts.....noting all the debate within this thread shows the level of engagement around the election. It will be illuminating to see the level of turn-out.

Simon-in-Suffolk posted:

Christopher_M posted:

That would have been a price worth paying IMO. The fundamental problem at the heart of UK politics is that, 'my vote doesn't matter, and anyway, they're all the same'.

Not at all, they are very different this time around... short of having real Communist and Fascist parties I think the electorate has quite a diverse choice this election.. of course some people will always be apathetic blaming some reason or other to justify their laziness.

If only I had written, 'my vote doesn't matter'!

Tony Blair was never a Tory anymore than TM is a red Tory but he certainly wasn't shall we traditional Labour hence the new Labour facade, being at the heart of the Islington cronies and all the utter hypocicy that went with it.  

Happy Listener posted:

...

I assume what you allude to above is the benefits of adopting a Keynesian approach in stimulating growth which will, in effect, pay for itself (more likely serve to balance financial ratios and not absolutes in terms of carried national debt). More than a few monetarists would disagree. And I don't think it's fair to lump blame on Osborne around the deficit - the last few years have defied many forecasters.

...

 

That's an incomplete statement of Keynesian economics promulgated by the left wing.

In principle, Keynesian economics is about stabilising the cyclic nature of national economies and the distinction between the slow movements of wages and prices compared to the the more rapid changes that can occur in a national economy.

So, in order to invest in the economy in any time of downturn, it's important to accumulate reserves when conditions become favourable and then invest in social measured support the structural integrity of society.  That very act can be used to prevent the economy overheating and precipitating the downturn.

In the downturn the only thing you should borrow to invest in is labour intensive infrastructure projects that will maintain society in the mean time and increase the rate of recovery when the depression is over.

The Conservatives only believe in the first accumulation of reserves irrespective of the stage of the economy.
The Labour party only believe in borrowing to support social measures and invest in the labour intensive infrastructure projects irrespective of the stage of the economy.

The problem is the time taken to switch from one to the other causes us to have the wrong type of government at the wrong time (i.e. we only switch back to the Tories after Labour have ruined the economy by allowing the deficit to grow out of control, and we only boot out the Tories when their austerity programme becomes intolerable and only benefits the rich).

wenger2015 posted:

Don Atkinson, MDS,

i can understand your views completely, what I don't understand is what the alternative is?

In simple terms, if you miss your target to bring down the deficit at least the deficit is coming down?

The inherited financial  situation 10 years ago, was by any standards horrendous....to me it will take a generation of austerity to stand any chance of getting back on track.

But of course that's not what anybody wants to hear...

The NHS needs a shed load of cash, and Care needs to be subsidised ....it's a never ending money pit...

Maybe I should vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party......

 

 

No, there has always been an alternative to austerity - it's called Keynesian economics. The problem with the banking disaster of 2008 was that it coincided with the dominance of neoliberal economics which favours such policies as low taxation and shrinking the state altogether. So austerity in the UK was connected not just with managing the massive financial debt incurred by the crash (itself the consequence of neoliberal deregulation in order to create a 'free' market) but a view that state spending should be reduced as a good thing in itself. The consequence was a sudden decline in economic activity after 2010 when the coalition came to power, and their policies took root. Before that the modest Keynesian policies at the end of the Labour administration had seen the economy begin to recover. Similar polices were followed in the Eurozone, although one contributing factor was historical - the deep fear in Germany of a recurrence of the economic collapse and hyperinflation after WW1. 

The policies after 2010 as implemented by Osborne have been a disaster despite the claims of all the jobs created and the robustness of the economy. Just remember that the economic growth since 2010 has primarily been fuelled by consumers and the stoking of the housing market, although Osborne claimed he would rebalance the economy. Both these factors are weakening after the decline of the pound and the significant over-valuation of the housing market. There was a circle that couldn't be squared and the consequence has been both the failure to meet the self-set deficit reduction targets and the undermining of public spending e.g. on health and education, while the 'flexible' labour market has produced new jobs which are part-time, on poor terms and conditions and/or on zero contracts. Punitive actions against the disabled and food banks are signifiers of this disastrous approach. The tax cuts for the better off have also contributed to the great rise in inequality in our society.

The dominance of neoliberal, market oriented economists was flagged a few years ago when university students started complaining that leftist and Keynesian economics were being driven off the curriculum. The alternative as proposed by Labour in both the last election and in 2015 has been to manage the current spending budget of the government but to borrow at the very low interest rates available to invest in the economy. This is in line with classic Keynesian economics and if applied effectively across the UK, should rebalance the economy and increase productivity, which could lead to a rise in wages. It is very hard therefore to maintain that the Labour manifesto is 'socialist' - taking essential utilities back into public ownership seems common sense as their marketisation has just exploited the consumer and filled the pockets of share holders and senior executives. Whether the current Labour leadership is capable of implementing such a policy effectively is another matter, but the alternative is there; and do note that the Lib-Dems are largely back with a Keynesian approach after the demise of their more liberal economic wing (e.g. Danny Alexander).

Clive

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

The Strat (Fender) posted:

HH - were you of that view when Tony Blair was heading for large majorities?

Yes, I've long believed in PR. Everybody's vote would then count and Parliament would genuinely reflect the wishes of the electorate. Tony Blair was a Tory in all but name anyway. 

If we'd had PR last time out I think we'd have had 20 UKIP MPs?

Yes, and that would have been a good thing because the more that UKIP has been exposed to public view the more their shortcomings have been exposed. 

I read a couple of week ago that Labour were going to suggest proportional representation in their manifest but it hasn't materialised - union influence again I fear. Our political system is really inadequate to our circumstances and PR is really a vital necessity.

Cdb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Don Atkinson, MDS,

i can understand your views completely, what I don't understand is what the alternative is?

In simple terms, if you miss your target to bring down the deficit at least the deficit is coming down?

The inherited financial  situation 10 years ago, was by any standards horrendous....to me it will take a generation of austerity to stand any chance of getting back on track.

But of course that's not what anybody wants to hear...

The NHS needs a shed load of cash, and Care needs to be subsidised ....it's a never ending money pit...

Maybe I should vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party......

 

 

No, there has always been an alternative to austerity - it's called Keynesian economics. The problem with the banking disaster of 2008 was that it coincided with the dominance of neoliberal economics which favours such policies as low taxation and shrinking the state altogether. So austerity in the UK was connected not just with managing the massive financial debt incurred by the crash (itself the consequence of neoliberal deregulation in order to create a 'free' market) but a view that state spending should be reduced as a good thing in itself. The consequence was a sudden decline in economic activity after 2010 when the coalition came to power, and their policies took root. Before that the modest Keynesian policies at the end of the Labour administration had seen the economy begin to recover. Similar polices were followed in the Eurozone, although one contributing factor was historical - the deep fear in Germany of a recurrence of the economic collapse and hyperinflation after WW1. 

The policies after 2010 as implemented by Osborne have been a disaster despite the claims of all the jobs created and the robustness of the economy. Just remember that the economic growth since 2010 has primarily been fuelled by consumers and the stoking of the housing market, although Osborne claimed he would rebalance the economy. Both these factors are weakening after the decline of the pound and the significant over-valuation of the housing market. There was a circle that couldn't be squared and the consequence has been both the failure to meet the self-set deficit reduction targets and the undermining of public spending e.g. on health and education, while the 'flexible' labour market has produced new jobs which are part-time, on poor terms and conditions and/or on zero contracts. Punitive actions against the disabled and food banks are signifiers of this disastrous approach. The tax cuts for the better off have also contributed to the great rise in inequality in our society.

The dominance of neoliberal, market oriented economists was flagged a few years ago when university students started complaining that leftist and Keynesian economics were being driven off the curriculum. The alternative as proposed by Labour in both the last election and in 2015 has been to manage the current spending budget of the government but to borrow at the very low interest rates available to invest in the economy. This is in line with classic Keynesian economics and if applied effectively across the UK, should rebalance the economy and increase productivity, which could lead to a rise in wages. It is very hard therefore to maintain that the Labour manifesto is 'socialist' - taking essential utilities back into public ownership seems common sense as their marketisation has just exploited the consumer and filled the pockets of share holders and senior executives. Whether the current Labour leadership is capable of implementing such a policy effectively is another matter, but the alternative is there; and do note that the Lib-Dems are largely back with a Keynesian approach after the demise of their more liberal economic wing (e.g. Danny Alexander).

Clive

No, Keynesian economics isn't an alternative to austerity, it's about stabilising the economy (and definitely not tax and spend): It's about retaining the labour force and speeding the recovery of the economy.  It has to run in parallel with austerity.

In difficult economic times, increasing tax where this reduces efficiency (most tax does this) is counter to the Keynesian model.  At these times Investment should be directed toward the loss of employment opportunities and to specific infrastructure projects that will allow the economy to grow faster when the economy recovers.  It indicates that this should be done by investing in labour intensive (n.b. not cost intensive) infrastructure projects that will support that recovery (and investment should only be directed to these projects).  Increasing the spend on social expenditure in a downturn is counter to the the Keynesian model (this includes the NHS and actually excludes all schools  except 6th form colleges (and higher education) - the ROI on these students is short term enough to be considered to assist the recovery).

In good economic climates is when the Keynesian model indicates that you should raise taxes and increase social expenditure.

Clive - how was the State shrunk in 2008? - the Civil Service and state owned organisations were employing almost record numbers of people.  And whilst income tax had not increased - except for the top rate GB's tactic of not raising the 40% threshold in line with inflation, crippling increases in fuel duty and road fund, above inflation increases in council tax, increases in alcohol duty, airport taxes - as one commentator in the Times said if you were a middle income earner who drove a car, enjoyed a beer and a holiday you were a sitting target.   

Huge posted:

Cdb posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Don Atkinson, MDS,

i can understand your views completely, what I don't understand is what the alternative is?

In simple terms, if you miss your target to bring down the deficit at least the deficit is coming down?

The inherited financial  situation 10 years ago, was by any standards horrendous....to me it will take a generation of austerity to stand any chance of getting back on track.

But of course that's not what anybody wants to hear...

The NHS needs a shed load of cash, and Care needs to be subsidised ....it's a never ending money pit...

Maybe I should vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party......

 

 

No, there has always been an alternative to austerity - it's called Keynesian economics. The problem with the banking disaster of 2008 was that it coincided with the dominance of neoliberal economics which favours such policies as low taxation and shrinking the state altogether. So austerity in the UK was connected not just with managing the massive financial debt incurred by the crash (itself the consequence of neoliberal deregulation in order to create a 'free' market) but a view that state spending should be reduced as a good thing in itself. The consequence was a sudden decline in economic activity after 2010 when the coalition came to power, and their policies took root. Before that the modest Keynesian policies at the end of the Labour administration had seen the economy begin to recover. Similar polices were followed in the Eurozone, although one contributing factor was historical - the deep fear in Germany of a recurrence of the economic collapse and hyperinflation after WW1. 

The policies after 2010 as implemented by Osborne have been a disaster despite the claims of all the jobs created and the robustness of the economy. Just remember that the economic growth since 2010 has primarily been fuelled by consumers and the stoking of the housing market, although Osborne claimed he would rebalance the economy. Both these factors are weakening after the decline of the pound and the significant over-valuation of the housing market. There was a circle that couldn't be squared and the consequence has been both the failure to meet the self-set deficit reduction targets and the undermining of public spending e.g. on health and education, while the 'flexible' labour market has produced new jobs which are part-time, on poor terms and conditions and/or on zero contracts. Punitive actions against the disabled and food banks are signifiers of this disastrous approach. The tax cuts for the better off have also contributed to the great rise in inequality in our society.

The dominance of neoliberal, market oriented economists was flagged a few years ago when university students started complaining that leftist and Keynesian economics were being driven off the curriculum. The alternative as proposed by Labour in both the last election and in 2015 has been to manage the current spending budget of the government but to borrow at the very low interest rates available to invest in the economy. This is in line with classic Keynesian economics and if applied effectively across the UK, should rebalance the economy and increase productivity, which could lead to a rise in wages. It is very hard therefore to maintain that the Labour manifesto is 'socialist' - taking essential utilities back into public ownership seems common sense as their marketisation has just exploited the consumer and filled the pockets of share holders and senior executives. Whether the current Labour leadership is capable of implementing such a policy effectively is another matter, but the alternative is there; and do note that the Lib-Dems are largely back with a Keynesian approach after the demise of their more liberal economic wing (e.g. Danny Alexander).

Clive

No, Keynesian economics isn't an alternative to austerity, it's about stabilising the economy (and definitely not tax and spend): It's about retaining the labour force and speeding the recovery of the economy.  It has to run in parallel with austerity.

In difficult economic times, increasing tax where this reduces efficiency (most tax does this) is counter to the Keynesian model.  At these times Investment should be directed toward the loss of employment opportunities and to specific infrastructure projects that will allow the economy to grow faster when the economy recovers.  It indicates that this should be done by investing in labour intensive (n.b. not cost intensive) infrastructure projects that will support that recovery (and investment should only be directed to these projects).  Increasing the spend on social expenditure in a downturn is counter to the the Keynesian model (this includes the NHS and actually excludes all schools  except 6th form colleges (and higher education) - the ROI on these students is short term enough to be considered to assist the recovery).

In good economic climates is when the Keynesian model indicates that you should raise taxes and increase social expenditure.

What I said was this, which I think agrees with what you were saying is Keynesian economics - by investment in the economy I was implying infrastructure:

'The alternative as proposed by Labour in both the last election and in 2015 has been to manage the current spending budget of the government but to borrow at the very low interest rates available to invest in the economy. This is in line with classic Keynesian economics and if applied effectively across the UK, should rebalance the economy and increase productivity, which could lead to a rise in wages.'

Apart from social services, health and education which is where the cuts have been made, I was also seeing 'austerity' as practised since 2010 as being the withdrawal of state spending on infrastructure projects - for example, I cannot remember what it was but there was a major planned project in the Midlands that Osborne cancelled as soon as he became Chancellor. 

As far as taxation is concerned, there is always an argument about the effect of taxation on the dynamics of the economy but I think it is fair to say that there are crises in social care, education and health which have been at least exacerbated by spending cuts and dramatic reductions in taxation that have benefited the wealthy mostly. Restoring corporation tax to something nearer the levels of other industrialised countries would not seem likely to damage economic growth in a fundamental way.

Clive

What dramatic cuts in taxation?   True he lowered the 50% rate but that wasn't raising anymore revenue. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Clive - how was the State shrunk in 2008? - the Civil Service and state owned organisations were employing almost record numbers of people.  And whilst income tax had not increased - except for the top rate GB's tactic of not raising the 40% threshold in line with inflation, crippling increases in fuel duty and road fund, above inflation increases in council tax, increases in alcohol duty, airport taxes - as one commentator in the Times said if you were a middle income earner who drove a car, enjoyed a beer and a holiday you were a sitting target.   

You mean it should have been shrunk and wasn't until the 2010 coalition? To be honest I cannot remember what the Labour economic and fiscal strategy was to be in the 2010 manifesto. I'm not saying that Labour's policies were unproblematic - their further deregulation of the city just being one example - I was just trying to point out that the 'austerity' narrative has become so dominant that there is little debate about viable alternatives, which there are.

Clive

On the other hand there HS2 and the Oxford / Cambridge expressway.  Ok the first one fails the criterion of being labour rather than cost intensive, but both projects are about economic stimulation *.

In the respect of "The alternative as proposed by Labour in both the last election and in 2015 has been to manage the current spending budget of the government but to borrow at the very low interest rates available to invest in the economy", they have consistently argued against the first, and previous application of the second is why we have such a large deficit.  A deficit is an efficiency drain and is counter to the Keynesian model; our economy no longer has the capacity for increasing our deficit, it's already been done to the Keynesian limit.

* N.B. I'm not particularly a George Osborne supporter (nor particularly an Alistair Darling supporter), but both of these are vastly preferable to Denis Healey or Gordon Brown.

Christopher_M posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

Like I suggested earlier, either in this thread or another, if the Conservatives win 650 seats in a four-way fight, but only poll (25% +650 votes), they will legally be entitled to implement their entire manifesto and hard Brexit. But morally ?????

I simply no longer want to be associated with this type of party.

 

Surely, voting system.

I chose the word "party" Chris, because it has a double meaning

I don't want to be associated with the Conservative Party given some of their manifesto items, as described above.

I also don't really want to be associated with a Conservative Party which seems determined to move to the extreme right+hard-Brexit even though its mandate is marginal.

I voted for PR (even though it was a half-baked version of PR) so I am not particularly happy with the Voting system. Our "First past the Post" shambles results in lots of jubilant party-like celebrations, but isn't the sort of party that enthuses me ! (even if my side wins). This "Winner-takes-All" mentality (a bit like the National Lottery) seems to be taking over here in the UK and I don't think it's good.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

HH - were you of that view when Tony Blair was heading for large majorities?

Like HH I'm a long term supporter of a change in our voting system. I think there is a massive problem in this country with politicians not being accountable. In many ways we need a revolution (small r but possible large R too) to completely rethink governance. 

There are currently too many layers of governance and many overlap. The House of Lords is for the most part a waste of space but is required as oversight for the Commons. In some ways the election of regional mayors is a step in the right direction; but I fear the real reason for them is to provide a scapegoat for national failings. If you are going to have regional powers; they need to be true powers not just an illusion.  

In many ways FPTP should provide for better representation; but the reality is that for the most part MPs represent parliament in their constituency rather than their constituency in parliament. 

Without being a constitutional expert ... I've favoured the idea of replacing the Lords with a "senate"; that would be elected on a PR basis but with a less changing membership - 10 year terms elected every 5 year as for Commons with half the "seats" being contested each 5 years. There needed be as many members as the current Lords either. That would allow legitimate oversight of the commons - who would still be supreme - moderating their excesses.  You could even turn it on its head and the senate was supreme with the leader of the largest party becoming PM and forming a government from the senators; the regional MPs would then form the oversight.

So that's my "back of a fag packet" suggestion for constitutional reform. I'm sure there are many flaws I've not addressed; but would allow for both constituency representation as FPTP is supposed to preovide as well as "every vote counts" moderation. 

PS the referendum in 2012 (date?) was not for PR in any form; it was an alternative vote system where the eliminated candidates votes are shared by second ppreference to the top candidates so the winner is required to get 50% of votes.

PPS There should also be a national debate on if there should be a legal requirement to vote: of course if there was then the poll needs to include "none of the above/below" as an option. There should also be a requirement for the government of the day to ensure as many eligible people as possible are registered rather than the current method which appears to be put as many obstacles in the way as possible. 

Don Atkinson posted:

I voted for PR (even though it was a half-baked version of PR) so I am not particularly happy with the Voting system. Our "First past the Post" shambles results in lots of jubilant party-like celebrations, but isn't the sort of party that enthuses me ! (even if my side wins). This "Winner-takes-All" mentality (a bit like the National Lottery) seems to be taking over here in the UK and I don't think it's good.

As someone else mentioned this a few posts ago too, it's worth noting that the choice was somewhat spurious.

The Lib Dems clearly wanted PR, the Tories wanted to keep FPTP. So the latter agreed to a referendum on voting reform, but only if the alternative to FPTP offered was not PR, but rather an alternative vote system - something nobody was campaigning for.

I thought at the time that it was a really cynical move by Cameron, albeit one which got him the result he wanted. Sharp contrast with the disastrous (from his point of view) Brexit vote 5 years later.

Not that that means PR would have won if it were offered. But it does mean that the argument which is sometimes invoked that 'we asked if people wanted PR, they rejected it, the issue has been dealt with' is wrong. I point this out because I suspect it will be cropping up more over the next few years.

So again the Tories are given a free pass by the media...

Jeremy Corbyn is pressed repeatedly about so called links to the IRA and the BBC trot out Arelene Foster of the DUP to add to the attack presenting her as an impartial observer ... nothing to do with DUPs general support of Conservative party policies and May in particular.

Tim Farron is asked five times about his Christian biased views on abortion, despite his views rarely influencing how he votes in parliament on such issues (he generally has abstained).

And Boris Johnson lies bare faced about May committing to £350m a week for NHS, and is then allowed pretty much a free pass to then start his speech about Strong and Stable, May vs Corbyn.

I have just been reading about Labours frontbench Mr Trickett, who released a tweet suggesting Mrs May was about to release Ian Brady..... ...the dirty tricks keep on coming.

Why do politicians behave like Children in the playground.... 

wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Labours frontbench Mr Trickett, who released a tweet suggesting Mrs May was about to release Ian Brady..... ...the dirty tricks keep on coming.

That would be former front bencher (for the record).

Why do politicians behave like Children in the playground.... 

Deliberate... or was he just an idiot and retweeted without thinking it through?  

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I have just been reading about Labours frontbench Mr Trickett, who released a tweet suggesting Mrs May was about to release Ian Brady..... ...the dirty tricks keep on coming.

That would be former front bencher (for the record).

Why do politicians behave like Children in the playground.... 

Deliberate... or was he just an idiot and retweeted without thinking it through?  

Quite possibly an idiot, but I like to think politicians had a degree of intelligence 

Well, that particular ridiculous tweet is certainly of no relevance now. Whether or not he was duped, he is obviously an idiot. I think most of us will agree on this.

However, I have been much more interested in the manifesto details, and in particular the fact that Theresa May's has attempted to hide some nasty little surprises, obviously in the hope that they will be lost in the context of this being largely an election focussing on Brexit. Her party's refusal to outline any details of the proposed pensioner benefits cuts to the winter fuel costs along with their ridiculous attempts to portray the changes to care costs reclamation as a compassionate policy change are deserving of the damage that they may cause to the Tory vote.

I (almost) felt sorry for the Tory party representative on Question Time when repeatedly pressed for details of how the means testing for the change would work and for information about how many pensioners would lose out. His attempts to respond to the questioners without answering the question were cringe-making. By contrast, I felt that John McDonnell's performance was very impressive. He's not someone I have admired very much up to now, but I am having to rethink my view of him.

Unfortunately, the poor performance of the Tories, coupled by some pretty dreadful manifesto policies (is she trying to reclaim the 'nasty' tag), won't be enough to lose them the election. However, with a bit of luck Theresa May will not gain the opportunistic landslide victory that she so desires.   

With reference to winter fuel allowance...as I understand the policy, it will be means tested,  as to what the criteria will be is anyones guess, but I don't see a negative with this......why give it to those who can afford it?

Regarding the Care issue, it's an endless money pit, something has to be done....? And whatever is done will no doubt not be popular ....

wenger2015 posted:

With reference to winter fuel allowance...as I understand the policy, it will be means tested,  as to what the criteria will be is anyones guess, but I don't see a negative with this......why give it to those who can afford it?

if its such a good idea: what are the Cons so scared about? Why won't they give proper details of who they will "target"?  As you said "what the criteria will be is anyone's guess".

Also for the last 7 years they have been "protecting" winter fuel allowance because to means test it would cost more than it saves.  It was also said that it wasn't means tested due to the complexity some people would find in claiming and the stigma attached.

I'm not against it being means tested; I just don't trust the Cons not to remove it from those who need it! 

Regarding the Care issue, it's an endless money pit, something has to be done....? And whatever is done will no doubt not be popular ....

The problem is it's down to luck and the lottery of health.

If you get cancer then you have a fairly short period of treatment and you either die or get better. All that is funded by the NHS. Treatments that costs tens of thousands of pounds. But suffer from (for example) dementia and you can be debilitated for a long time; decades even. You have no chance of getting better and require long term care. So people who have worked all their life loose (virtually) everything.

Social care should be seen as secondary to health care - they should be treated with equal importance.

A tax on everyone's assets at death would be fairer. Or perhaps all health and social care costs should be calculated over a persons life and a charge against assets at death should be applied?

Heating support.  I'm going to be fortunate enough to retire next year on an excellent package with considerable benefit.  Why on earth should I receive heating benefit and a bus pass when a relative of mine earns just on the living wage pays £4 a day in bus fares to get to work.   Corbyn, Labour and the socialist movement is so detached from reality it beggars belief.   Hell I'm angry.     

wenger2015 posted:

With reference to winter fuel allowance...as I understand the policy, it will be means tested,  as to what the criteria will be is anyones guess, but I don't see a negative with this......why give it to those who can afford it?

Regarding the Care issue, it's an endless money pit, something has to be done....? And whatever is done will no doubt not be popular ....

First, on the winter fuel allowance, there is a strong whiff of hypocrisy. If the Labour party had announced their plan for imposing a 45% tax rate but not said at what income level it would apply the Tory's (and the Tory press) would have lambasted them for uncosted measures etc.  But when the boot is on the other foot...?

Second, on care costs the Tories have ditched their own policy, developed under Cameron and based on Dilnott's report, but they want to present this as if they are the first party to 'grip the issue'

Third, also on the care costs, Hunt has been telling the media that £100k is a fair sum for people to leave to their children.  If that's so, why isn't the Inheritance Tax threshold set at that level? It is currently over £600k for couples and the Tory's have long held that their aim is for that to reach £1m, once the family home is taken into account. And even then the tax rate on the sum in excess is 40%.  Yet for someone deeply unfortunate enough to suffer from dementia, they and their families are effectively taxed at 100% above the proposed £100k threshold.  Where's the fairness in that? Indefensible double-standards in my view.

The Strat (Fender) posted:

Heating support.  I'm going to be fortunate enough to retire next year on an excellent package with considerable benefit.  Why on earth should I receive heating benefit and a bus pass when a relative of mine earns just on the living pays £4 a day in bus fares to get to work.   Corbyn, Labour and the socialist movement is so detached from reality it beggars belief.   Hell I'm angry.     

How many people will die though through having to choose between eating and putting the heating on? How much savings is worth each death?

You should be shouting about the inequity of the person on living wage (which isn't) rather than taking what might be essential for someone's survival. 

How much is a means testing scheme going to cost?  How much will it save?

It is not better than some money is paid out needlessly (you can always return the payment if you feel so strongly) than people die?