Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People are bound to be fed up of me banging this drum, but here's further proof of the incompetence and ineptitude of the non Tory, tory party:
We're facing the biggest challenge Britain has seen since World War Two, and yet, instead of their full focus on the Brexit talks, the non-Tories see fit to bribe their supporters with another tax giveaway
They are corrupt, care nothing for the national interest, and have no idea what to do when it comes to steering this nation forward.
I need to drive down to England, meet some Tory voters and give them a good shake to wake them up...
I swear I actually read an article in the Times (print edition) just yesterday about how May is looking at raising inheritance tax, albeit in a different format, in order to account for pension and social care costs. Something about raising death duties on property or suchlike.
Not to mention that with all due respect, an article in the Guardian based upon a research report privately commissioned by a Labour MP is never exactly going to paint a Tory Government in a good light, is it? I'm not saying the report itself is inaccurate, I wouldn't know (especially since the link given to the report only leads back to the article itself...?). But if it were, you wouldn't know, the source is as about politically compromised as it is possible to get.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yeah, here we go. It's print, so I'll have to speedtype it, forgive any spelling mistakes.
Ministers are considering forcing people to pay for their social care from their inheritances, as they make plans to reform the policy later in the year.
Phillip Hammond is likely to use next week's budget to put more money into social care in a move that he hopes will alleviate pressure on the NHS.
A more comprehensive reform package overseen by the Cabinet Office is being prepared for the autumn, with all options understood to be under consideration. The chancellor is also understood to believe that wealthy people should be prepared to contribute more, rather than leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.
A Whitehall source said "Phillip thinks it's unfair for welathy people to build up assets, sit on a huge property waiting to pass that to their children, then expect the state to pick up the cost of their care".
One Cabinet Minister told the Times "There is an issue about inheritance. Should someone be able to pass their house on to their children without paying the cost of care, or can you get access to some of that money?"
It marks a change from the approach of David Cameron and George Osborne to rule out "death taxes", or additional levies on top of inheritance tax to pay for care.
One idea being looked at by ministers is simply to reclaim the cost of care for an individual from their estate, but there are concerns that this could be unfair as it means that some families would lose everything while others pay nothing. Equity release schemes, where the value of a house can be used towards care costs, could cause problems when another partner is still living in the property.
Another idea being discussed is introducing a compulsory social care levy on estates over a certain value. Under such a system there would be a cost to families, but nobody would have to manage care costs on their own and everyone could keep most of their inheritance.
So basically, Osborne's approach is already being kicked out the door by May and Hammond, judging by the amount of leaking on this one. When a Cabinet Minister is giving briefs under the Chatham House rule, it's already 90% of the way to being official policy usually.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 11:55:18
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: People are bound to be fed up of me banging this drum, but here's further proof of the incompetence and ineptitude of the non Tory, tory party:
We're facing the biggest challenge Britain has seen since World War Two, and yet, instead of their full focus on the Brexit talks, the non-Tories see fit to bribe their supporters with another tax giveaway
They are corrupt, care nothing for the national interest, and have no idea what to do when it comes to steering this nation forward.
I need to drive down to England, meet some Tory voters and give them a good shake to wake them up...
I swear I actually read an article in the Times (print edition) just yesterday about how May is looking at raising inheritance tax, albeit in a different format, in order to account for pension and social care costs. Something about raising death duties on property or suchlike.
Not to mention that with all due respect, an article in the Guardian based upon a research report privately commissioned by a Labour MP is never exactly going to paint a Tory Government in a good light, is it? I'm not saying the report itself is inaccurate, I wouldn't know (especially since the link given to the report only leads back to the article itself...?). But if it were, you wouldn't know, the source is as about politically compromised as it is possible to get.
You don't think it's a warped sense of priorities?
Here we are, with the pound on the verge of dropping like the Titanic, complex EU negotiations on the horizon, and years of economic uncertainty along the road, and the Tories are tinkering around with inheritance tax?
WTF!!!!
Deckchairs. Titanic.
I don't deny the Guardian's politics, but the Times, establishment mouthpiece for centuries, is hardly above this sort of thing, either.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 12:15:23
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
You don't think it's a warped sense of priorities?
Errr....I'll be honest, I thought your issue was that inheritance tax was being dropped like a hot potato? So I thought I'd point out the policy on that one's reversed since Osborne left office? Shouldn't you be pleased at that?
Make up your mind man!
I don't deny the Guardian's politics, but the Times, establishment mouthpiece for centuries, is hardly above this sort of thing, either.
I'm not claiming the Times to be the paragon of anything, I was just using it to substantiate that the Guardian piece is actually effectively out of date.
Looking at the timeline, I suspect that the Labour MP probably commissioned her report three/four months ago, and was planning on revealing it in a month or two with a grand flourish! Only now, she's heard that the Government is about to do a U-turn on the whole thing in about a week, so now she has to rush it out the door before it becomes completely useless and out of date. A fifth of a headline is better than none...
On the side, I read an article talking about how Hammond is banging his head against the wall on account of the fact that he devised the term 'death tax' as a nice soundbyte to hit Labour with half a decade ago, and is now regretting it on account of the fact that he never had an issue with the concept, he was just scoring political points. And now he's in the Treasury and dreading seeing the phrase come back to bite him in the arse.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/03/01 12:24:36
but it's still me and Channel 4 as the only people taking a stand against these crooks at CCHQ.
What are your thoughts on these allegations against 50+ Tory MPs.
The GE was in May 2015. It's almost 2 years later, and still no further forward with the investigation.
II just feel the whole thing is getting swept under the carpet
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
but it's still me and Channel 4 as the only people taking a stand against these crooks at CCHQ.
What are your thoughts on these allegations against 50+ Tory MPs.
The GE was in May 2015. It's almost 2 years later, and still no further forward with the investigation.
II just feel the whole thing is getting swept under the carpet
Errr.....reference me to what you're talking about? I'm honestly not entirely sure!
My post at the bottom of page 186. Links included.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yeah, completely dodges the issue about not being allowed to speak to Parliament if Parliament isn't in session. Will it prevent any boycotts or protests?
Yeah, completely dodges the issue about not being allowed to speak to Parliament if Parliament isn't in session. Will it prevent any boycotts or protests?
Doubtful. It just means all those MPs will be able to take part in marches instead as they aren't stuck in Westminster
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
I see now, DINLT, I wrote my post at the same time as that one, and mine got posted on the next page so I missed yours.
After taking twenty minutes or so to browse through and acquaint myself with the facts, my understanding is this (correct if wrong):-
-The Tories spent a few extra grand putting up their staff in hotels in byelections, &
-The Tory battlebuses did some local MP promoting in the General Elections.
Cameron claims the battlebuses were part of a 'national' campaign and therefore not subject to spending restrictions. Channel 4 says they were doing local promoting whilst in the neighbourhood, and therefore should have part of their full cost counted towards local electioneering caps (regardless of any national stuff they were doing on the side). The Conservatives are being a little bit dodgy over the whole thing, and Channel 4 is making lots of gratuitous statements about how this undermines the legitimacy of the government.
On the basis of that being my understanding, it looks pretty obvious what's happened. The Tories thought they could get away with their national buses doing a little local promoting whilst on the road, and they were caught at it. Which is embarassing and they should have their knuckles firmly rapped by the courts.
Channel 4 seem to be blowing it all up into some huge big deal though, far beyond its actual significance. They're playing slightly dodgy games with the way they're laying out the data to try and make it seem more important, and drawing conclusions about the 'legitimacy' of local MP's, when frankly, getting an extra day of promoting by a battle bus swinging through a neighbourhood isn't likely to have changed things one way or t'other.
Don't get me wrong, the evidence would appear to be there that the Tories played slightly loose and fast with what their national campaigns should be doing locally. But then again, Cameron did something similar around the 'Remain' campaign, so he seems to have a track record of that sort of thing.
It's a bit crass, and someone should censured for it in some form, but it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup is my reading.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 13:09:43
Yeah, completely dodges the issue about not being allowed to speak to Parliament if Parliament isn't in session. Will it prevent any boycotts or protests?
If Trump continues on his plotted course there will be protests. However, if there is no real change or even a softening of his policy it actually makes any protests look bad. Time will tell though.
Europe must not erect trade barriers with Britain for political reasons because it would be ‘economically dangerous’ for the world, Liam Fox, the Eurosceptic minister for international trade, has said.
Mr Fox warned that trade barriers are going up and restrictions to business is rising as he addressed private equity insiders at a conference in Berlin.
But he said that despite the referendum to leave the European Union, the UK remains ‘open for business’ and ‘the most attractive place to do business’.
Speaking at the SuperReturn conference, Mr Fox said:
It may seem amazing to those of us in this room that free trade as a concept should face so much opposition.
In recent decades globalisation in particular of Asian economies has lifted millions from poverty.
In western economies imports and technological advances driven by global competition has seen living standard higher than ever before and yet we find the rhetoric of protectionism once more into the political and economic debate.
He said political players must be warned not to create barriers where “none currently exist”.
He added:
Let me be very frank. Any new impediments to trade and investment in Europe will not only be politically irresponsible but economically dangerous and not just for Europe but for the wider global economy. We do not act in a political vacuum and there are economic actions that have global implications.
Mr Fox said the UK actually wanted the European Union to be successful in a ‘competitive environment’.
He said:
Our referendum was in no way a desire to see the EU breaking or diminish the UK may have chosen a different paths but we will not reject the values that still bind us to our European neighbours: freedom, equality, democracy, the rule of law.
get thee behind me irony.
Of course that should read as : Disgraced former defence secretary Liam Fox -- lest we forget.
So is he disingenuous, stupid or out of his mind ?
I never thought I'd live to see an actual Uk Govt. minister make a speech in which they say we don't want any consequences for our actions.
Extraordinary.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Yeah, completely dodges the issue about not being allowed to speak to Parliament if Parliament isn't in session. Will it prevent any boycotts or protests?
Doubtful. It just means all those MPs will be able to take part in marches instead as they aren't stuck in Westminster
They can be ignored a lot more easily in a crowd outside, than for Trump to speak to an empty chamber.
Yeah, completely dodges the issue about not being allowed to speak to Parliament if Parliament isn't in session. Will it prevent any boycotts or protests?
Doubtful. It just means all those MPs will be able to take part in marches instead as they aren't stuck in Westminster
They can be ignored a lot more easily in a crowd outside, than for Trump to speak to an empty chamber.
But remember, this is Trump we're talking about here. He said it didn't rain during his inauguration, so I wouldn't put it past him talking to an empty room but then claiming it was full and that they all gave him a standing ovation.
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
The license fee is going up to £147.00.....from £145.50...a whole £1.50 more.
Or like....12p a month. Give or take. In the first increase since 2010.
Is there no end to their greed?
I resent paying the TV tax, and I've had a few run ins over the years with TV licence men
I've have to disagree with you on this one. Any increase, even a penny, is bang out of order in my book.
And for the record, I'm no Murdoch fan either. I wouldn't wipe my rear with one of his newspapers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: I see now, DINLT, I wrote my post at the same time as that one, and mine got posted on the next page so I missed yours.
After taking twenty minutes or so to browse through and acquaint myself with the facts, my understanding is this (correct if wrong):-
-The Tories spent a few extra grand putting up their staff in hotels in byelections, &
-The Tory battlebuses did some local MP promoting in the General Elections.
Cameron claims the battlebuses were part of a 'national' campaign and therefore not subject to spending restrictions. Channel 4 says they were doing local promoting whilst in the neighbourhood, and therefore should have part of their full cost counted towards local electioneering caps (regardless of any national stuff they were doing on the side). The Conservatives are being a little bit dodgy over the whole thing, and Channel 4 is making lots of gratuitous statements about how this undermines the legitimacy of the government.
On the basis of that being my understanding, it looks pretty obvious what's happened. The Tories thought they could get away with their national buses doing a little local promoting whilst on the road, and they were caught at it. Which is embarassing and they should have their knuckles firmly rapped by the courts.
Channel 4 seem to be blowing it all up into some huge big deal though, far beyond its actual significance. They're playing slightly dodgy games with the way they're laying out the data to try and make it seem more important, and drawing conclusions about the 'legitimacy' of local MP's, when frankly, getting an extra day of promoting by a battle bus swinging through a neighbourhood isn't likely to have changed things one way or t'other.
Don't get me wrong, the evidence would appear to be there that the Tories played slightly loose and fast with what their national campaigns should be doing locally. But then again, Cameron did something similar around the 'Remain' campaign, so he seems to have a track record of that sort of thing.
It's a bit crass, and someone should censured for it in some form, but it's all a bit of a storm in a teacup is my reading.
Fair point, but I still think this story has a lot of miles left in it. We learned from Watergate that the cover up is always worse than the original crime. Tory attempts to sweep this under the carper hint at something bigger IMO.
I will keep my eyes on this story.
And another thing, yes, Channel 4 may have an agenda at times, but for my money, they're still one of the best news channels in Britain.
At least they try and stick to old school journalism.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 15:35:17
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I resent paying the TV tax, and I've had a few run ins over the years with TV licence men
So did I, until I tried watching American TV (and to an extent, most of the channels that aren't from BBC/4). There's so many intrusive adverts it's unreal. So I'd quite happily pay the £11 a month in order to access the BBC ad free, where it's only beholden to the regulators and not the sponsors. If BBC changed from license funded to sponsor funded or closed down and left us with sponsor funded TV I don't think I've ever connect it.
It shouldn't be mandatory if you're not using BBC, or it should just be rolled into council tax. We must waste an absolute fortune managing the TV licensing.
BBC news reporting may be hugely biased, but our TV is on CBeebies about 90% of the time and I'm grateful it doesn't have adverts every 5 minutes encouraging my toddler to bug me for stuff
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 15:50:08
I resent paying the TV tax, and I've had a few run ins over the years with TV licence men
So did I, until I tried watching American TV (and to an extent, most of the channels that aren't from BBC/4). There's so many intrusive adverts it's unreal. So I'd quite happily pay the £11 a month in order to access the BBC ad free, where it's only beholden to the regulators and not the sponsors. If BBC changed from license funded to sponsor funded or closed down and left us with sponsor funded TV I don't think I've ever connect it.
It shouldn't be mandatory if you're not using BBC, or it should just be rolled into council tax. We must waste an absolute fortune managing the TV licensing.
BBC news reporting may be hugely biased, but our TV is on CBeebies about 90% of the time and I'm grateful it doesn't have adverts every 5 minutes encouraging my toddler to bug me for stuff
In this day and age, who bothers with TV anymore. This is the age of the boxset, the live stream, kindle tv stick thingy, or whatever it's called
If I want to watch live sport, there always a stream from Kazakhstan or something to tune into to. To hell with Murdoch and Sky Sports
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Herzlos wrote: You clearly don't like in the sticks with gakky broadband.
Though to be fair we've been watching a huge amount of films off USB these days, much easier to deal with than DVD's when you've got a lively toddler!
Weren't the government supposed to have rolled out better broadband to rural areas by now?
Another thing that needs to be addressed post Brexit.
At any rate, I have to go. I wish I had the time to hang around dakka all day, but I've got miniatures to paint.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Her husband has been on sickness benefits since last July after a femoral artery bypass in his leg and a subsequent hernia. But on Monday, the day after Irene was deported, John received a letter from the government saying he was fit for work and would no longer get his employment support allowance.
... Kafka wherefore art thou ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Really? They chose to go after "Sturgeon Racist" and not the infinitely better "Pirate Physio" at the top?
EDIT: Not only that, but there's "Self-examination" beneath it. This has NHS criticism written all over it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 18:18:22
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
Ketara wrote: Yeah, here we go. It's print, so I'll have to speedtype it, forgive any spelling mistakes.
Ministers are considering forcing people to pay for their social care from their inheritances, as they make plans to reform the policy later in the year.
Phillip Hammond is likely to use next week's budget to put more money into social care in a move that he hopes will alleviate pressure on the NHS.
A more comprehensive reform package overseen by the Cabinet Office is being prepared for the autumn, with all options understood to be under consideration. The chancellor is also understood to believe that wealthy people should be prepared to contribute more, rather than leaving taxpayers to pick up the bill.
A Whitehall source said "Phillip thinks it's unfair for welathy people to build up assets, sit on a huge property waiting to pass that to their children, then expect the state to pick up the cost of their care".
One Cabinet Minister told the Times "There is an issue about inheritance. Should someone be able to pass their house on to their children without paying the cost of care, or can you get access to some of that money?"
It marks a change from the approach of David Cameron and George Osborne to rule out "death taxes", or additional levies on top of inheritance tax to pay for care.
One idea being looked at by ministers is simply to reclaim the cost of care for an individual from their estate, but there are concerns that this could be unfair as it means that some families would lose everything while others pay nothing. Equity release schemes, where the value of a house can be used towards care costs, could cause problems when another partner is still living in the property.
Another idea being discussed is introducing a compulsory social care levy on estates over a certain value. Under such a system there would be a cost to families, but nobody would have to manage care costs on their own and everyone could keep most of their inheritance.
So basically, Osborne's approach is already being kicked out the door by May and Hammond, judging by the amount of leaking on this one. When a Cabinet Minister is giving briefs under the Chatham House rule, it's already 90% of the way to being official policy usually.
I'm not sure it's really going to help that much. I had the unfortunate experience (but not as bad as it was for my mother) of going through this process with my grandmother a few years back (so the evidence is anecdotal) but to summarise:-
My grandmother was about 90 when she had a fall at home (she had become more unstable over time, not helped by her rampant eating of chocolate and lack of exercise in the preceding 15-20 years). However my mother found her the morning after collapsed in the bathroom (fortunately no injuries).
She was hence duly sent to hospital and spent several weeks there in attempt to rehabilitate her and get her moving (nothing wrong with her mentally), however her lack of desire to put any effort eventually meant they discharged her back home because it was going nowhere. However the NHS failed to undertake the proper assessment and although the local authority was informed that she needed social care they were told she only needed basic care. The provider duly sent one person to help a few times a day, but she was incapable of going to the bathroom herself, getting into bed and so on. However the care provider wouldn't provide a second person to assist (because they wouldn't get paid by the local authority) because the correct need assessment hadn't been completed. The carer effectively said she couldn't look after her safely with only one person, which at the end of the *same* day she was discharged meant a call to the on duty local GP. He was unable/unwilling to review the NHS assessment and effectively in the end decided that the only way to keep her safe was to call an ambulance and get her back into hospital.
So the process started again. This time however being a bit wiser to the fact the NHS might try and discharge her as quickly as possible we ensured that the correct assessment was undertaken. This duly stated she would effectively need two carers almost permanently but which was not provided for as standard by the local authority so it was basically pay for two carers (very prohibitive given her minimal assets other than a £130k one bed semidetached bungalow) or place her in a care home.
However local authorities are entitled to contract out for such work and place a threshold limit on how much they will pay (and that is means tested as well). It is up to the siblings/person being put in care to decide where they want to stay but if it is in excess of the authority contracted agreed rate then the siblings/estate have to pay the fees anyway (and note this isn't included in the cap of how much you have to pay). To put it bluntly those with places at the agreed rates were both extremely limited and also not the best of places to put a loved ones unless you have no choice (note anecdotal). In our case this was partially paid for in the end by renting out the property and with a credit agreement with the local authority (as the rent/pension didn't cover all the costs) with the intent that when the property was sold that would pay off the debt (we calculated we would exceed the costs after about 15 years but that wasn't deemed likely to be needed given her age). We didn't want to sell the house because at the time the doctors still indicated that if they could rehabilitate and get her moving again then she could go back home under local authority social care.
As such in many cases where there is capital available these are already being channelled to pay for care 'privately' anyway. The real issue is for those that can't afford to do this and raising the current cost cap (£72,000) isn't really going to help such people. Those with an excess of this amount are already likely sending their loved ones to better social care locations anyway (or paying for a better standard of care) to private health care providers. So the extra income it is likely to result in I can imagine is minimal.
Sadly, but in some ways fortunately especially for my mother (I always feel slightly guilty about this), my grandmother passed away about 6 months from an infection (but that's another story) - on the same day we had the funeral for my brother's still born baby (it was not a good year!). I suppose the thing that sticks in the memory the most was how sad my grandmother was when we had to take her into hospital the second time. It's almost like she knew she wasn't going to come back to here home.
The issue with the system is that the Doctors/Nurses are overworked and so things are missed. The local authority finds it difficult to recruit social care workers (and those that remain are overworked, overloaded and underpaid). The social care providers/local authorities only have enough money to pay for the most basic care (hence anyone with some assets just pays privately anyway to get better care); and this could be compounded as a lot of social care workers are from the EU (this is another service that could be hit by a hard Brexit). Hence just changing the cap is not really going to affect much at all (except maybe in London areas where the older generation might be sitting on inflated house prices). Even the recent increases from allowed council tax rises (with no referendum) have effectively only just about covered the changes in minimum wage. Part of me wonders whether this is about trying to get more houses on the market in certain areas than really solving the social care issues...
Her husband has been on sickness benefits since last July after a femoral artery bypass in his leg and a subsequent hernia. But on Monday, the day after Irene was deported, John received a letter from the government saying he was fit for work and would no longer get his employment support allowance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/01 20:46:27
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Normally I would just laugh this off as a mistake and some attendant tinfoil hattery. However Given Sadiq Khan's happy little speech at the SLab conference at the weekend I'm not so sure.
