Labour ?

Cdb posted:

I'm very pleased that the Tory social care policy has crumbled away today. As people have been indicating here it's a complicated issue and one that needs very careful thought. I had one or two additional points.

On intergenerational fairness. I am now in my late 60s and my thought is that any money I might be able to leave ought primarily to help my grandchildren some of whom will no doubt be saddled with large educational debts as well as the difficulty of buying a home.

Any social care proposal needs to transfer resources in a fair way amongst the population given the lottery element of the effects of various forms of illness, as has been pointed out. The Tory proposal of a minimum inheritance of £100000 instead of a maximum cap is intrinsically unfair as the very rich can fund care not from capital but from investment income - thereby preserving all capital assets for inheritance. Of course there may be circumstances where selling a home might be necessary to fund such income which is problematical and which is why a hypothecated additional death duties/inheritance tax seems the fairest solution.

Andy Burnham who I believe, proposed such an approach, made a very important point about a key practical advantage of such an approach on the radio at lunchtime. This was that if both health and social care are funded from taxation sources then it is much more straightforward to integrate the services and improve efficiency and effectiveness.

Clive

 

I completely agree.

Kevin-W posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Keep in mind about 1.5 Billion is lost in benefit fraud...

According to Government figures published last October, the cost of benefit fraud (actually £1.6bn) is dwarfed by that of tax evasion and avoidance, which costs £34bn a year. Of this, about £4.4bn is outright evasion, and just under £3bn "legal but dubious" avoidance schemes. The rest can be accounted for by being "uncollected" whatever that means.

However, some estimate the cost to the UK Exchequer (via rich individuals and trans-national corporations salting assets and properties overseas and in tax havens) is about £120bn a year.

 

The £120n figure isn't credible, Kevin.  NAO and others have accepted the flaws in its calculation. Yes the 'official' £34bn figure is a big number when viewed in isolation but in terms of the total tax take it is small, about 6%. And the UK has one of the smallest tax gaps in the world.  Much smaller than the USA for example. Moreover most of the tax gap, about £18bn, is due to small and medium businesses, which I think puts into context the benefit fraud figure.  Though the Daily Mail probably wouldn't give much prominence to such a contrast. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

We need to be careful in bandying around assumptions about benefit claimants. I'm one, as I am receiving contribution based Employment and Support Allowance of £73.10 a week. This is because I cannot work due to the brain injury sustained as a result of being knocked off my bike last year, which rather turned my world upside down. I'd love to be able to work. 

I completely agree, HH. You surely didn't expect your dreadful accident and it is right that the State gives you financials assistance to help you with the financial consequences of you accident.  Similarly, when someone is struck down by dementia, it's not their fault, or the fault of their families.  Yet the Conservatives seem quite happy to clobber them financially.  I thought we paid taxes and NI to pool the risk of such awful happenings but, it seems, some fates count and some don't.      

MDS posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

We need to be careful in bandying around assumptions about benefit claimants. I'm one, as I am receiving contribution based Employment and Support Allowance of £73.10 a week. This is because I cannot work due to the brain injury sustained as a result of being knocked off my bike last year, which rather turned my world upside down. I'd love to be able to work. 

I completely agree, HH. You surely didn't expect your dreadful accident and it is right that the State gives you financials assistance to help you with the financial consequences of you accident.  Similarly, when someone is struck down by dementia, it's not their fault, or the fault of their families.  Yet the Conservatives seem quite happy to clobber them financially.  I thought we paid taxes and NI to pool the risk of such awful happenings but, it seems, some fates count and some don't.      

Not wishing to become embroiled in the larger general discussion regarding funding, or lack of it, your last sentence rather sums up my thoughts.

Having consistently paid the maximum NI throughout my working life, I rather thought that I had entered into a contract of sorts with HMG, whereby the "insurance" thus provided would take care of medical issues in my later years.

The notion that, instead, my house and savings might well be called upon to fund this suggests a breach of that implied agreement.

Silly me. 

dave marshall posted:

MDS posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

We need to be careful in bandying around assumptions about benefit claimants. I'm one, as I am receiving contribution based Employment and Support Allowance of £73.10 a week. This is because I cannot work due to the brain injury sustained as a result of being knocked off my bike last year, which rather turned my world upside down. I'd love to be able to work. 

I completely agree, HH. You surely didn't expect your dreadful accident and it is right that the State gives you financials assistance to help you with the financial consequences of you accident.  Similarly, when someone is struck down by dementia, it's not their fault, or the fault of their families.  Yet the Conservatives seem quite happy to clobber them financially.  I thought we paid taxes and NI to pool the risk of such awful happenings but, it seems, some fates count and some don't.      

Not wishing to become embroiled in the larger general discussion regarding funding, or lack of it, your last sentence rather sums up my thoughts.

Having consistently paid the maximum NI throughout my working life, I rather thought that I had entered into a contract of sorts with HMG, whereby the "insurance" thus provided would take care of medical issues in my later years.

The notion that, instead, my house and savings might well be called upon to fund this suggests a breach of that implied agreement.

Silly me. 

Exactly, Dave. 

The worrying thing for me is that May thought this was a sensible policy. But it wasn't thought through. The manifesto was not costed. It all smacks of hubris. The desire to get a massive majority is overriding the needs of the nation. Yet if May started eating babies the Mail would still support her. But Corbyn, whose manifesto has some well thought out policies to build a better nation, is castigated. 

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

Keep in mind about 1.5 Billion is lost in benefit fraud...

Well that's not actually true is it either?

Official estimates put benefit fraud at 0.7% so that's your 1.5bn (1.6bn in the report I read). But it's just that; an estimate based on previous figures which suggested around 1.3bn (or 34% of overpayments for that year) was due to fraud rather than errors.

So it's true that DWP and overpaid around 4.6bn in benefits; but that is not the same as fraudulent claims as it includes errors and mistakes in calculations. They also underpaid 1.6bn. 

But if we're talking about lost money; that falls to insignificance almost compared with the 34bn lost due to tax evasion / avoidance. 

Hear hear!

The minority of those in receipt of benefits who make fraudulent claims should be rigorously investigated and prosecuted, instead of the blanket 'cuts for all'.

Were the Tories then to turn their attention to collecting all the taxes Eloise refers to, there would be a significant amount of funds available to contribute towards the social care budget. Alas, Tories pursuing their mates is about as likely as turkeys voting for Christmas. No surprise there then.

I am so bloody depressed by the events of the last 12 months I may, for the first time in 45 years, consider either not voting, or spoiling my ballot paper! I simply have no confidence in the major parties (nor, if it comes to it, the minor ones either).

Tim

Timmo1341 posted:

I am so bloody depressed by the events of the last 12 months I may, for the first time in 45 years, consider either not voting, or spoiling my ballot paper! I simply have no confidence in the major parties (nor, if it comes to it, the minor ones either).

Tim

I think a lot of people will be able to identify with that to some extent. And of course with the way the system works, your vote may make little difference, depending where you live. HH's Tory newt, or my local MP with his choice of a leaflet so badly laid out that it appeared on HIGNFY are examples of that - in both cases the current MP will probably walk it whatever happens.

But if you live in a marginal seat I'd suggest there is a valid, albeit tactical voting option that's consistent with despairing apathy - vote to restrict the majority. By that I mean vote for whichever party might take your local seat but won't win the GE. Try to restrict the mandate of whichever bunch of no-hopers get in, with the aim of restricting the damage they can get away with doing until someone who actually does inspire confidence comes along.

I say that with tongue at least half way in cheek, and it's probably not viable anyway. And it's not how I feel personally. But, you know, maybe worth thinking about.

Interesting news on zero hours contracts,  I'm not sure if its part of the tory manifesto or not.  Unlike the labour objective of banning (outlawing) zero hours contracts,  the tory plan is to bring in "right to request" fixed hours & will be similar to the present right to request flexible hours - after having a child for example.   The plan is supported by the Confederation of British Industry & like the existing request to have flexible hours,  employers would have to respond "seriously" to the request and give reasons for their decision.

.............    to make my opinion clear,  I'm all for zero hours contracts provided it suits both parties & it's not abused.     

Dave***t posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

I am so bloody depressed by the events of the last 12 months I may, for the first time in 45 years, consider either not voting, or spoiling my ballot paper! I simply have no confidence in the major parties (nor, if it comes to it, the minor ones either).

Tim

I think a lot of people will be able to identify with that to some extent. And of course with the way the system works, your vote may make little difference, depending where you live. HH's Tory newt, or my local MP with his choice of a leaflet so badly laid out that it appeared on HIGNFY are examples of that - in both cases the current MP will probably walk it whatever happens.

But if you live in a marginal seat I'd suggest there is a valid, albeit tactical voting option that's consistent with despairing apathy - vote to restrict the majority. By that I mean vote for whichever party might take your local seat but won't win the GE. Try to restrict the mandate of whichever bunch of no-hopers get in, with the aim of restricting the damage they can get away with doing until someone who actually does inspire confidence comes along.

I say that with tongue at least half way in cheek, and it's probably not viable anyway. And it's not how I feel personally. But, you know, maybe worth thinking about.

Not a bad idea Dave! Perhaps Mebyon Kernow (Party for Cornwall) may get my vote!!

Oops, cancel that - it transpires MB are not putting up any candidates in the 6 Cornish constituencies. It would appear they are all 2 horse races (Tory and LibDem), so abstention it is!

Tim

I can't help but wonder if dismay with the current parties may inspire more independents?

I feel that it's really important to vote, even if your vote seems pointless under the current system. All votes are counted when it comes to the share of the vote nationally. Votes for all were a hard fought thing and I somehow feel it's my duty. 

I know where you're coming from HH, but of the 4 choices on offer (Con, Lab, LibDem & Green) I simply cannot give that hard won vote to any of them, for a variety of reasons and strongly held beliefs.

Were there an Independant with an IQ of more than 60 standing, he/she would probably get my vote!

I completely agree with HH. It does matter in respect of the national vote, and I would personally never choose to willingly abstain from voting for any reason. Abstention from voting will simply not be viewed as an act of protest. It will simply be looked upon by almost everybody as an indication of laziness or apathy or both of these. 

I think that I have only ever missed one election since I have been eligible to vote. On that occasion I was on holiday, and the postal-vote forms I had applied for were delayed and not made available prior to my departure.

If my constituency was a 2 horse race without my main choice, I would look at the 2 options available and vote for the 'least bad' of the two, and could I add that, like quite a few others who have expressed similar views, I have always believed that introducing a form of proportional representation is the only really fair way to decide the outcome of a general election in this country.    

I consider the right to vote to be a civic duty,  failure to do so IMO is tantamount to rejecting your citizenship & the rights that go along with that.   You may not agree in general with the politics of any of the party's,   but please don't try to tell me you disagree with everything in all the policies of all the party's.    

My uncle's view (disaffected Tory > UKIP - now not sure!) is that people should spoil their voting papers in protest.

I've no idea what that might achieve from a protesting perspective. A bit like 'extras' in cricket?!

Timmo1341 posted:

I know where you're coming from HH, but of the 4 choices on offer (Con, Lab, LibDem & Green) I simply cannot give that hard won vote to any of them, for a variety of reasons and strongly held beliefs.

Were there an Independant with an IQ of more than 60 standing, he/she would probably get my vote!

About 99,6% of the people have an IQ >= 60.

Politics is a quite expensive method to care for these people.

A different kind of vote I know but after Brexit there were many who tried to claim that a no vote should, somehow, be seen as a vote for the status quo.  I think it is our civil duty to vote but I fully understand the use of the protest vote in current times and I hope that turn out is high

I was listening to a current affairs programme last night, that strongly suggested very very few voters , if any at all, ever read the manifesto of the party they are voting for.

Voting decisions are based on media soundbites, and do they like the look of the Candidates,  what they are wearing, ect ect.....one of my employees said ' I would not vote for Corbyn because he never wears a tie'..

So it does make you wonder, what's the point.... 

dayjay posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

wenger2015 posted:

The other side of the coin, if you have never worked, don't wish to work and play the benefits system, you end up getting everything for free....?  

I don't know how many of these stereotypical benefit scroungers there are, but I don't imagine there are many, as living on benefits is not a great life. 

You have perhaps had a sheltered life then Nigel.  Whilst there is no where near as many as the Tory press would make out there are still plenty of people around who have never worked, for whatever reason, and are never likely to.  I spent my first twenty six years on a 'rough' estate and know lots of people, some of whom I like very much, who play the system very well and will never work a day in their life.  They know exactly what they are 'entitled' to and they make sure that they get it.  It all depends what your aspirations are and how you define a great life I guess. 

On this issue it's easy for both sides to exaggerate their position.  It's more complex/nuanced. I'm sure some but a minority start out  on a so called sink estate where when they are young they don't get any opportunity and encouragement, and it goes from there.  Equally some fall on  bad times and fall into the same situation - it's a kind of entrapment.    Wake up late, smoke, go to he pub etc, early pregnancy.  Very easy to stereotype but Wenger is right there are some who will for whatever reason be very content to sustain the lifestyle.  But equally there are those who desperately wish to break out  and for a multitude of reasons can't.  Now although I'm very much of the me meritocracy mindset and believe that the State, and by tat of course I mean taxpayer, doesn't owe anyone anything - I believe it is my responsibility to manage and resource my own life and that of my children - I recognise that the State needs to provide support to those who genuinely can't provide for themselves and help those that can move on to better things. It's about balance but I suspect too many are being allowed to wallow in their own self pity or more lack of motivation to do anything about it.

However, I think there's a wider piece at play here and I'm passionate about this.  It seems to me that more generally a culture has been allowed to permeate throughout society which is basically "the state will provide".  I was struck by a TV debate last year during the EU referendum campaign a group of nurses were challenging David Cameron - nothing wrong with that - by saying that they were putting in the effort at work to deliver the service - they are no doubt on that - but he (Cameron) now had to keep to his side of the deal and put the money in.  My response to this was 2 fold - forget all this stuff about under-funding of the NHS it's receiving record levels of money albeit the real increase is slowing, but more it just seemed to me that their statement seemed oblivious to the fact that it's not the politicians who put the money in but the tax payer.

Regards,

Lindsay

I think Corbyn is ill advised to start the blame game and criticise  the Conservatives foreign policy for the atrocities in Manchester,  using recent events for political gain is a poor show. 

wenger2015 posted:

I think Corbyn is ill advised to start the blame game and criticise  the Conservatives foreign policy for the atrocities in Manchester,  using recent events for political gain is a poor show. 

 

Which he didn't actually do at all. But which, predictably enough, the (majority of the) press and Tories are falling over themselves to say he did. Which in turn, ironically, actually is using the atrocity for political gain.

Dave***t posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I think Corbyn is ill advised to start the blame game and criticise  the Conservatives foreign policy for the atrocities in Manchester,  using recent events for political gain is a poor show. 

 

Which he didn't actually do at all. But which, predictably enough, the (majority of the) press and Tories are falling over themselves to say he did. Which in turn, ironically, actually is using the atrocity for political gain.

He is quoted as saying 'British foreign policy has fuelled terrorism '....??

The inference no doubt is that interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan (both initiated by Labour governments by the way), have stoked international terrorism and instability. The intervention in Libya was never about regime change; it was originally about saving lives that were under extreme persecution.

Corbyn would do well to remember that.

Ask yourselves this question. Are you prepared to live in a 'Do nothing' society? 

wenger2015 posted:

Dave***t posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I think Corbyn is ill advised to start the blame game and criticise  the Conservatives foreign policy for the atrocities in Manchester,  using recent events for political gain is a poor show. 

 

Which he didn't actually do at all. But which, predictably enough, the (majority of the) press and Tories are falling over themselves to say he did. Which in turn, ironically, actually is using the atrocity for political gain.

He is quoted as saying 'British foreign policy has fuelled terrorism '....??

Which it has.* Not that that's what he actually said, but never mind. Corbyn's speech wasn't using horror for political point scoring, it was quite obviously part of saying we have to learn from this and make sure we do everything possible to stop it happening again. Avoiding the politicisation of tragedy isn't about not mentioning the tragedy - that atrocity is now, rightly, a major part of the context of all UK politics. If Manchester were being used as a stick to beat May with, I'd agree with you. But the criticism is of war, not parties - it absolutely does include the last Labour government just as much as, if not more so than, the governments since 2010.

I actually agree that the timing is unfortunate. Not because I think it's opportunistic, but because it's too soon nonetheless. But it's just plain wrong that what was actually in the speech (as opposed to tendentious paraphrasing) was cynical or manipulative in the way some commentators have (IMO cynically) made out.

*Not just my opinion, but the verdict of the cross party foreign affairs select committee investigating the conflict in Libya under Cameron: 'The result was political and economic collapse, inter-militia and inter-tribal warfare, humanitarian and migrant crises, widespread human rights violations, the spread of Gaddafi regime weapons across the region and the growth of [Islamic State] in North Africa'.

The (Tory) chairman of the committee: 'Other political options were available. Political engagement might have delivered civilian protection, regime change and reform at a lesser cost to the UK and Libya. The UK would have lost nothing by trying these instead of focusing exclusively on regime change by military means.'

Similar criticisms of Blair's foreign policy are sufficiently familiar to go without saying.

Those who would seek to criticise attitudes born out of a desire for peace would do well to bear the above in mind instead of going off spin at the time.