8 June

[Alan Medic]

https://www.ft.com/content/e021c208-3ede-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

Lets see if this works.........

..........it didn't. You can read the article though. Just can't post a link to it.

[red devil]

I couldn't, when I clicked on the link on the Home page up popped the ''subscribe to read'' message...

[jaywalker]

The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com has really made my afternoon. Well done to the press for not letting her off the hook.

[Angelina]

If my children behaved this badly, they'd go on the 'No Devices' punishment

[JohnL]

You get a few free reads on FT - not many

"Weak and Wobbly" now being used :)

[red devil]

Yep, unlike the Telegraph maybe the FT doesn't reset their limit every month.

I saw Weak and Unstable in the Guardian which was a bit lame...

[????]

jaywalker Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com has

> really made my afternoon. Well done to the press

> for not letting her off the hook.

I thought they were all Tory Lapdog/Murdoch MSM etc?

So, from my point of view, from thinking we had just one incompetent at the head of a major political party I see it's now 2!

Oh happy days

[JohnL]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> jaywalker Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com has

> > really made my afternoon. Well done to the

> press

> > for not letting her off the hook.

>

>

> I thought they were all Tory Lapdog/Murdoch MSM

> etc?

>

> So, from my point of view, from thinking we had

> just one incompetent at the head of a major

> political party I see it's now 2!

>

> Oh happy days

and Tim Farron (still banging on/being banged on about faith) and Paul Nuttall (who scored hat trick for Spurs at the weekend)

[Earl Aelfheah]

If only foxes and infants read the Daily Mail, we might get a couple more policy u turns.

[????]

May's U-Turn is the issue really.

In terms of the Manifestos

- endless free stuff, however regressive (and free school meals and no tuition fees FOR ALL are blatantly upper middle-class subsidies thus regressive), paid for by other people is very popular

And an actually more progressive policy (the Dementia tax) is unpopular

So people want a free lunch........but there is no such thing

Not that the Tory manifesto was very inspiring and May's political judgement looks terrible with the u-turn

[Earl Aelfheah]

The 'dementia tax' isn't progressive nor a tax. It's a deferred charge for a service..effectively a deferred privatisation of social care. It's the removal of publically funded social care provision for those unlucky enough to develop a slow degenerative illness in old age.

[????]

you forgot ...those that own a home

[????]

...or have an estate worth more than ?100,000

[steveo]

'publically funded social care provision for those unlucky enough to develop a slow degenerative illness in old age.'

This barely exists. If you have the money you pay for it. End of

[Lordship 516]

NOT a U-turn ...a clarification..!

Stable Policy [not!] - ?100,000.00 protected

Wobble policy clarification

?100,000.00 protected

Cap on contribution to dementia care

All of this will favour the richest house owners

Example

1] House worth ?175,000 [say in North East]

a) ?100,000 protected

b) Cap of ?75,000

c) Residual value left in property - ?100,000.00

d) Percentage of property taken - 42%

2] House worth ?350,000 [say in Kent]

a) ?100,000 protected

b) Cap of ?75,000

c) Residual value left in property - ?275,000.00

d) Percentage of property taken - 21%

3] House worth ?700,000 [say in Dulwich]

a) ?100,000 protected

b) Cap of ?75,000

c) Residual value left in property - ?625,000.00

d) Percentage of property taken - 10.5%

This proposal helps the richest in society - again..!

She is really recovering to help her own constituency of conservative well off people.

If the cap was worked so the first ?100,000 was totally protected for everyone ... then cap the contribution at (say) 50% of the balance. [amounts to be adjusted annually in line with inflation or average wage rise.] This would be a more fair arrangement.

No provision has been proposed for a relative who has been acting as a carer for many years in the house that is also their home. A total ideological policy convenience so the Mayniacs can divvy up reduced taxes to their well off friends.

Neither has she explained how the charge on the property would be applied - would it be a charge by the government or would it be a loan from a bank or insurance company guaranteed by the government..? This matters a lot also because a loan from a bank/insurance company or even the local authority would be exposed to interest accruing annually affecting the security of the residual value.

[Earl Aelfheah]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> you forgot ...those that own a home

Yep, that's true. Anyone who owns a house or has an estate of more than ?100k will have it taken after their death, (only) if they are unlucky enough to die of a drawn out, degenerative illness. So a form of deferred privatisation. The other way to provide social care would be through a system of progressive taxation during people's lives, which pays for public health provision.

[Earl Aelfheah]

Mays performance on Andrew Neil show is appalling

[jaywalker]

The moment of danger for her is that people in her party are beginning to repeat that she does not appear to be a conservative - her image of strong and stable blown out of the water "my" policies (not her party's) now rather exposed to scrutiny.

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[Angelina]

interesting to read some 'readers' letters' agreeing with the stealth tax if there is enough money in the estate and why people should expect to hand down their property to their children.

Is this based on envy?

[titch juicy]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ???? Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > jaywalker Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com

> has

> > > really made my afternoon. Well done to the

> > press

> > > for not letting her off the hook.

> >

> >

> > I thought they were all Tory Lapdog/Murdoch

> MSM

> > etc?

> >

> > So, from my point of view, from thinking we had

> > just one incompetent at the head of a major

> > political party I see it's now 2!

> >

> > Oh happy days

>

> and Tim Farron (still banging on/being banged on

> about faith) and Paul Nuttall (who scored hat

> trick for Spurs at the weekend)

Is Tim Farron still banging on about faith? From what i've seen he's been doing a pretty decent job in recent weeks, and to my eyes their manifesto is the best of the bunch.

[JohnL]

titch juicy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > ???? Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> > -----

> > > jaywalker Wrote:

> > >

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> >

> > > -----

> > > > The clip of May's interview on news.sky.com

> > has

> > > > really made my afternoon. Well done to the

> > > press

> > > > for not letting her off the hook.

> > >

> > >

> > > I thought they were all Tory Lapdog/Murdoch

> > MSM

> > > etc?

> > >

> > > So, from my point of view, from thinking we

> had

> > > just one incompetent at the head of a major

> > > political party I see it's now 2!

> > >

> > > Oh happy days

> >

> > and Tim Farron (still banging on/being banged

> on

> > about faith) and Paul Nuttall (who scored hat

> > trick for Spurs at the weekend)

>

>

>

> Is Tim Farron still banging on about faith? From

> what i've seen he's been doing a pretty decent job

> in recent weeks, and to my eyes their manifesto is

> the best of the bunch.

Abortion when I last heard - The interviewers start it

but maybe he should ignore it.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lib-dem-leader-tim-farron-christian-faith-refuses-say-abortion-wrong-sky-sophy-ridge-a7747226.html

Edit: to be honest "Mr Farron, who has made no secret of

his Christian faith, replied" is a bit suspect in tone.

[Jeremy]

It doesn't come across at all well when he says he's pro-choice, but refuses to say "no, it's not wrong".

It's a strange sort of dichotomy... as a liberal he believes in individual liberty, but at the same time has private views grounded in religion which he's unwilling to share.

I'll probably be voting LD, but I think he's the wrong man to lead the party, and a poor choice as a figurehead for British liberalism. A missed opportunity in the current political landscape.

[Dogkennelhillbilly]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> interesting to read some 'readers' letters'

> agreeing with the stealth tax if there is enough

> money in the estate and why people should expect

> to hand down their property to their children.

>

> Is this based on envy?

It could be based on the perfectly reasonable belief that - the care has to be paid for, the money has to come from somewhere, and big wodges of unearned inheritances are a good enough place to start.

[red devil]

Isn't that what existing inheritance tax is for?...

500 :)