Theresa May - Downing St. announcement at 11.15am

[BlodwynPig]

Oh no, not the counterculture. That's exactly what I don't want to be part of!

Ooh, that's not a couple of sentences that someone who's been cheered up would type. Try harder!

Get back to the shagging, mate.

[TheFalconMalteser]

The Tory social care announcement is interesting.  It doesn't cap how much you pay, which means it's unlikely insurance products will emerge.

On the face of it, it's relatively fair.  It means there isn't a distinction between whether you're in your home (we don't assess your property) or whether you're in a care home (we do).  It also basically ensures bigger inheritance for the kids of people with modest properties.  You'll always get 100k (if the house is worth that much) rather than 23k.

Made me laugh that working class Tories round here seem to be furious about it.  And the media at large seem to have presented it that way.  I assume this is because social care is complex.

Via John Rentoul Corbyn fucked up talking about it, he seems to think it's a 100k cap, no idea really what point he's trying to make.  I never get the impression he's that interested in our actual health and care or welfare systems...  He had two days to understand it (or his team brief him)!

[Zetetic]

It's a lottery for those with more than 100k based on whether you end up fucked in your dotage and, while this random aspect is marginally interesting and unpleasant, it overall serves to entrench wealth inequality at the low-end.

That's not great and I don't see how it's "relatively fair". "Fair" relative to a universal progressive inheritance tax?

[olliebean]

What's this 'Mainstream Britain' bullshit? Have the Tories offered a definition of 'Mainstream Britain'?

Because to me it sounds like it's got sinister connotations (as do most phrases coined by the Tories). 'Mainstream' - normal, acceptable, conventional. Not in any way unusual or eccentric. Not rocking the boat in any way. Not questioning. Perfectly content. The accepting majority. Nobody with ideas above their station. Certainly not anyone set adrift in some superfluous eddy. Going with the flow. Going forward. Carried along by the current. Heads above the water.

'Mainstream'.

It's probably meant to be code for "What you want to be part of unless you want people to think you're some kind of weirdo, because only weirdos would vote for anyone other than us."

[Zetetic]

And it's another neat way of shackling both vast swathes of the population and the state further into the housing bubble, I guess, so it has that going for it as well.

[TheFalconMalteser]

It's a lottery for those with more than 100k based on whether you end up fucked in your dotage and, while this random aspect is marginally interesting and unpleasant, it overall serves to entrench wealth inequality at the low-end.

That's not great and I don't see how it's "relatively fair". "Fair" relative to a universal progressive inheritance tax?

Sorry. I did say relatively.  Fair in comparison to the current system.  Which is broken.  No party is making a serious attempt to address funding reform.

About 1 in 10 face care costs of over 100k. Pretty sure that's not what they actually pay as the LA ends up paying for a proportion of these, but yes, if you have dementia and a nice big house, you go into residential care and don't die within a couple of years, you'll end up spending everything on care.

[Zetetic]

This doesn't bring us any closer to funding reform.

I suspect it'll further undermine the idea of properly socialising care costs across the whole population.

About 1 in 10 face care costs of over 100k.

More now, presumably, noting that it'll mostly affect the estate, as it'll be the case for many more of those being cared for at home.

[TheFalconMalteser]

There's a useful IFS briefing on this. Will get the link later but it should be easily found.

[Zetetic]

https://election2017.ifs.org.uk/article/social-care-a-step-forwards-or-a-step-backwards?

[Zetetic]

Which seems to echo me - this doesn't get us anywhere near the issue. (But it's a fudge to drag out  Local Government for a bit without actually funding it properly.)

We'll drag a bunch more people into paying for at least some of their social care, and they and their children will increasingly resent the poorest in society for it over the decades that they experience it.

[TheFalconMalteser]

I agree that it doesn't really do much to address the issue - I wasn't saying that it did.  Thanks for finding the link.

[Johnny Yesno]

I agree that it doesn't really do much to address the issue - I wasn't saying that it did.  Thanks for finding the link.

On the face of it, it's relatively fair.

Zetetic done you. He. Done. You.

He done you.

[TheFalconMalteser]

Zetetic done you. He. Done. You.

He done you.

Baffling.  Not your first inability to understand something extremely simple.

I said it was relatively fair. 
Eg, in comparison to the current system
I didn't say anything about whether it addresses fundamental challenges around social care funding. It doesn't.

I do think you could work that out on your own...

[Paul Calf]

The Tory social care announcement is interesting.  It doesn't cap how much you pay, which means it's unlikely insurance products will emerge.

On the face of it, it's relatively fair.  It means there isn't a distinction between whether you're in your home (we don't assess your property) or whether you're in a care home (we do).  It also basically ensures bigger inheritance for the kids of people with modest properties.  You'll always get 100k (if the house is worth that much) rather than 23k.

Made me laugh that working class Tories round here seem to be furious about it.  And the media at large seem to have presented it that way.  I assume this is because social care is complex.

Via John Rentoul Corbyn fucked up talking about it, he seems to think it's a 100k cap, no idea really what point he's trying to make.  I never get the impression he's that interested in our actual health and care or welfare systems...  He had two days to understand it (or his team brief him)!

Missing qualifier: "Unless you're rich enough to be able to afford avoidance schemes to exploit the loopholes in the law, or indeed just pay for private care."

More of that intense relaxation, there.

[TheFalconMalteser]

I don't know if you have a particularly impression of my views on social care, but I'm not someone who thinks the current system works.  We've restricted access, too often the service is a crap one, staff don't have the time to do a good job, are paid little, we have real problems with recruitment and retention, providers are exiting the market.  Huge lottery for the 1 in 10 who have to pay over £100k*, no one chooses to get dementia.

*I'm not sure if that's accurate, or it's 1 in 10 face care costs of that much, which the council is paying for in most cases?

[colacentral]

https://youtu.be/nv8sQplhvX0

Jamie Oliver on Channel 4 News: "I've worked with four prime ministers. This one is weird."

[Replies From View]

https://youtu.be/nv8sQplhvX0

Jamie Oliver on Channel 4 News: "I've worked with four prime ministers. This one is weird.

With a minute to spare they managed to be negative about Corbyn, thankfully.  "Is he going too far, may I get you to agree with those words I am putting in your mouth?"  "Yes."  Phew!  Tick.

[monkfromhavana]

https://youtu.be/nv8sQplhvX0

Jamie Oliver on Channel 4 News: "I've worked with four prime ministers. This one is weird.

It's not short-sighted if you're planning on privatising the NHS and so don't give a fuck about obesity or type-2 Diabetes in the long run.