care costs

[Eric Cartman]

It's a verbatim video from Sky News. If you only watch news from sources you approve of you won't get the full picture. You should watch the video as it's wholly relevant. It's easy to nitpick but it's bloody hard to govern.

Sorry for any assumptions, that was wrong of me, but that is how it comes across. This is a big step forward that is a big movement in the right direction. One can argue it doesnt go far enough but it is a sea change and a positive move and people really should see it like that (unless you approve of people losing almost all their savings?)

It really does read a lot that people supportive of the opposition do not want things to succeed or do not want to see progress made if it isnt under their terms.

James you are sort of missing the point. Many conservative MPs couldn't support this proposal despite almost always voting with the government on every other issue, don't you want to know why? I don't really care what Labour's proposal is until they have one and they probably won't have one until they are in government because you don't win elections by being honest. You think 'well what are Labour going to do??!' is some big gotcha because you have decided I am some politicised left wing activist, I am not and therefore it isn't.

I disagree, I don't see it as a big step forward. I do not have much in way of savings, live in rented accommodation and will inherit more of my parents wealth as a result of this bill, but I still don't support it because it is prioritises preserving generational wealth over what is best for the country which is accessing it and distributing it via progressive taxation. I will make it really simple, I don't feel entitled to my parents accumulated wealth and I think it is counter intuitive to build our funding model around the premise that inherited wealth is a good thing for the nation as a whole.

[JamesWales]

James you are sort of missing the point. Many conservative MPs couldn't support this proposal despite almost always voting with the government on every other issue, don't you want to know why? I don't really care what Labour's proposal is until they have one and they probably won't have one until they are in government because you don't win elections by being honest. You think 'well what are Labour going to do??!' is some big gotcha because you have decided I am some politicised left wing activist, I am not and therefore it isn't.

I disagree, I don't see it as a big step forward. I do not have much in way of savings, live in rented accommodation and will inherit more of my parents wealth as a result of this bill, but I still don't support it because it is prioritises preserving generational wealth over what is best for the country which is accessing it and distributing it via progressive taxation. I will make it really simple, I don't feel entitled to my parents accumulated wealth and I think it is counter intuitive to build our funding model around the premise that inherited wealth is a good thing for the nation as a whole.

My understanding is that somr Tory MPs, generally in working class areas, voted against due to a change in the legislation which made it less palatable, especially in terms of how the media and opposition framed it. They were, of course, safe in the knowledge the legislation would pass.

I would also agree with you on progressive taxation etc. I am in favour it as opposed to regressive taxes such as VAT etc.

It doesnt change the basic principle here however. Social care needs paying for. It's a can that has been kicked down the road for years and causes emotional and financial heartache for thousands of families every year and is a massive contribution towards many elderly feeling they are a burden.

It is probably impossible to find a perfect solution to something as grossly imperfect and unjust as caring for the sick or old, but this is the closest we have come to it and it is a massive step forward and hopefully prevents the endless politicisation of it. Remember this ridiculousness? How many have had finances wiped out needlessly in the last four years because of that? https://www.theguardian.com/society/...tive-manifesto

My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years

[Eric Cartman]

My understanding is that somr Tory MPs, generally in working class areas, voted against due to a change in the legislation which made it less palatable, especially in terms of how the media and opposition framed it. They were, of course, safe in the knowledge the legislation would pass.

'Less palatable' in what way?

From what I heard, a lot of those who abstained rather than voted against did so because they were very confident the bill in its current form wouldn't make it past the next stage in the Lords. It won't be changed enough for me to support it but I think the new way of calculating the cap (that the gov tried to slip in without telling anybody) will be removed.

My suspicion is that were the exact same policy put forward by a different party then you would be in favour, recognising, imperfect that it is, that it is a step forward and gives more security to the poorest in old age, which it manifestly does compared to the system that is currently in place and has been for years

That probably says more about your approach to political discourse than mine. I supported May's policy as it created provision for people to access wealth held in their homes to pay for social care (i.e. what I have said in almost every post in this thread), unfortunately CCHQ wrecked it after she started nose-diving in the polls.