Social care

I am glad the Prime Minister has confirmed that the social care policy will be set out in more detail in a Green Paper with a proper consultation, as I assumed when I first wrote about it. That was why I decided to consult through this site on the changes. She has also made clear that there will be a cap on how much social care cost someone has to pay. This means there are now two ways the proposals are more generous than current policy. There could be a £100,000 higher cut off for anyone in a care home having to spend their own money on the fees, four times the current permitted capital sum. There could be a ceiling on how much care cost someone living in their own home has to pay, where there is none for someone with substantial savings today. The Prime Minister also confirmed that under the proposals no-one living in their own home would have to sell their home to pay the social care costs.

Published and promoted by Fraser Mc Farland on behalf of John Redwood, both at 30 Rose Street Wokingham RG40 1XU


  1. PaulDirac
    May 22, 2017

    The PM’s social care initiative was d..b, not the idea itself (which is justified), but the timing.
    She should remember that she has to win first and only then she get’s to decide on a policy. It is BREXIT d….y, hitting her most loyal constituency, especially 20 days before election day, is just not smart.

    1. Hope
      May 22, 2017

      May was appalling in intview with Andrew Neil tonight. She showed she was untrustworthy, lied, cannot keep her word and has an appalling record. Her manifesto states not only will the UK pay what it legall to the EU but also what is in the spirit of the partnership! What sort of negotiation stance is that and to inform the EU in advance! Why not give them an open Cheque book of the British taxpayer and say help yourself. Absolutely stupid and at a time when she is justifying working it into savers, strivers and responsible pensioners for care Home costs she says we cannot afford. She wants all your residual wealth to give away to the EU, overseas aid, HS2, green lobby crap. Squeeze Middle England until their pips squeak. I am not convinced Corbin would be worse. Bring back Brown, Osborne made him look good.

      1. Lifelogic
        May 23, 2017

        May is indeed a dreadful, daft, socialist but rest assured Corbyn would be far far worse. All the money and the hard working would leave for a start.

  2. Bert Young
    May 22, 2017

    Theresa has about turned because of the strong reaction to her manifesto announcement . When she was challenged on this she waffled about . She has exposed a very weak side to her character and will have much to do if she is to restore it . The opinion polls showed a quick downturn from her previous position .

    1. Hope
      May 22, 2017

      Cameron got a coalition in 2010 after Brown was the most disliked PM in living memory. May is out to beat his record, a bit like her appalling immigration record. Corbyn and Farron what a dream team for coalition!

      1. Lifelogic
        May 23, 2017

        Corbne Farron and Sturgeon what a dreadful prospect that is.

      2. fedupsoutherner
        May 23, 2017

        Don’t forget the SNP..

  3. Mike Wilson
    May 22, 2017

    As far as I am concerned it is a contract between the state and the individual that individuals pay income tax, national insurance, VAT, council tax, car tax, duties on fuel, duties on tobacco and alcohol, stamp duty, tax on interest on savings etc. etc. and the state provides a National Health Service (INCLUDING care when you have a long term illness), education for our children, law and order services and so on.

    Social care must come from general taxation or it is yet another incentive to loaf around all your life – never buy a house – never work harder and train yourself etc.

    This U-Turn makes it impossible for the Tories to talk about anyone else being in a state of chaos.

    We spend more than 20 thousand, million pounds on Foreign Aid and to the EU. Surely we could find just 2 billion to fund social care properly. And stop hedge funds buying care homes and building chains of them.

    1. sjb
      May 22, 2017

      That crossed my mind, too. By making it much harder for informal carers to look after their loved ones, the person ends up in residential care much sooner. Consequently warehouse-size accommodation will be needed.

      Once the chain has, say, 50,000 under management it can then turn around and say without more funding it will be closing down. HMG faced with having to find and transfer 50,000 residents to “places of safety” (to use the jargon) will presumably capitulate to the chain’s demands.

      Do we know whether Attendance Allowance, Carer’s Allowance and Income Support (for carers) will continue under the proposed new scheme?

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      May 23, 2017

      “Social care must come from general taxation”

      Indeed maybe it is time to hypothecate some taxes and give access only to those who have paid.

    3. Lifelogic
      May 23, 2017

      The government in general provide little of any real value to anyone.

  4. Lifelogic
    May 22, 2017

    Well, following this rapid U turn it is hard to see how they will get away without putting a figure (or range) on this new cap. May does seem to be making rather a lot of entirely predictale and very avoidable political errors.

    Of course when they do finally put a figure on this new “cap” Labour will then say it is “a huge tax subsidy for May’s rich Tory friends”.

    Why on earth did May and the three(?) manifesto writers think it was a good idea to go into the election promising tax rises, more red tape, more expensive greencrap energy, more socialism and more benefit cuts?

    We are still even now waiting for the £1M IHT threshold promise years ago to be kept, yet they have already introduced a second probate tax and plan this long term care one too. So no one expects her to keep her promises, hopefully she will not, as so many are so very misguided and left wing.

    1. percy openshaw
      May 23, 2017

      Quite – it is all extremely worrying. At least she’s not a stiff necked fool like Major but something of a fool she is, nevertheless. No political leader should presume to lead in isolation from their wider party; either they need a vast, loyal, established personal following OR they must proceed by means of consultation and consensus. Mrs May has burrowed down into some ideological rabbit hole attended by Alice in Wonderland and the March Hare, who seem between them to have written this useless, generalised, pompous manifesto – at a time when the practical necessities of politics have made the immediate way forward clearer than ever! It’s Brexit, stupid.

      1. rose
        May 23, 2017

        What she needs to realize is she was only popular for two reasons: she wasn’t Corbyn and people didn’t see muchof her. Now, the more they see of him, the more they like him, and the more they see of her…

        Just keep her out of sight and out of earshot. It worked very well for Queen Mary.

  5. Iain Gill
    May 22, 2017

    Still not good enough I am afraid.

    Fundamentally like much of the rest of the tax and benefits system the wrong incentives are being put into the system.

    I think the policy wonks who come up with this stuff really need to sit down with some real people in the real world like me.

  6. eeyore
    May 22, 2017

    “The purpose of government isn’t to make things better. It’s to stop things getting worse.” (Sir Humphrey Appleby).

    Mrs May now needs no reminder of the proverbial paving of the road to hell. I hope she’ll put her beautiful social conscience back in its bag for the moment and get on with the real job. After all, the basics of the election – Brexit and Corbyn – haven’t changed, even though she has done her level best to make the latter look relatively competent. She still has my vote. And maybe we’ll hear a bit less of strong and stable from now on.

    By the way, the screech of brakes and smell of tyre smoke are not all in my imagination, whatever JR says. See

  7. Yossarion
    May 22, 2017

    The Okey Cokey Women
    You put a left Policy In
    A left Policy out
    In Out In Out and shake it all about
    You Totally Bemuse the Voter
    wondering if she’s the Right one to vote for
    And that’s what it’s all about.
    Oh the Okey Cokey Women

  8. Dioclese
    May 22, 2017

    Yeah, but firing up a scare story and labelling it “dementia tax” is far better for your election prospects than sticking to facts and figures…

  9. Freeborn John
    May 22, 2017

    Just voted … UKIP. May’s words to Juncker about basing Brexit on the cosmetic EU Justice and Home Affairs opt-out was decisive. Let’s see over the next 5 years if she is any more serious about Brexit than David Cameron when he promised to “rule nothing out” should his negotiations with Brussels come to nothing.

  10. ian stafford
    May 22, 2017

    The p r would have been better if she had said that the Cons are guaranteeing that you will never have to give up your last 100k rather than concentrating on what the care charge will take. But absolutely possible to fit in a limit on charges and still guarantee you your 100K. How about the proposition that the state will pay the costs above the actuarial costs of the length of care need? Further if the average house is 200K then shout that the policy is saving half the house.

  11. ian wragg
    May 22, 2017

    What a shambolic campaign disaster and home goal.
    Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory aptly describes this absolutely unnecessary debacle.
    I begin to wonder if as with fox hunting it is a deliberate attempt to lose the election.

    1. Denis Cooper
      May 23, 2017

      I saw it claimed on TV that a draft of the manifesto included provision for a cap on the costs which would be borne by the estate, but that cap was removed by an “unelected official” and ministers failed to spot that change and object to it. I find it easy enough to suspect that person may have acted out of disloyalty with a deliberate attempt to sabotage the manifesto and so undermine the Tories’ electoral prospects and possibly even get Corbyn installed as PM before the negotiations with the EU.

  12. Paul w
    May 22, 2017

    All very well but it is still not very clear as to what she is proposing..too many ifs, could be’s and maybe’s implied..its not good enough..whatever is proposed has to be fair. What about we agree if we go into care to hand over 80 per cent of our pension and then on our death cede 20 per cent of our total some people might find yhat or a similar proposal to be more acceptsble..

  13. alan jutson
    May 22, 2017

    Well at least it is now possibly half sensible, but why on earth did the manifesto simply not say in the first place.
    “We plan to revise Social care and its costs in the next Parliament, but only after detailed analysis and extensive consultation”

    Dilnot has made two proposals so far as I understand it, clearly neither seems acceptable if you plan yet more revision.

    We all know Social Care and the NHS require more money, so why not simply raise the National Insurance contribution and ring fence it, so that the many pay for the unlucky few, which was the very basis on which it was originally founded.

    We have now had 3 u turns in 3 months John

    First the Probate Death tax, then the Self employed NI rise, Now Social Care plans.

    All sensible decisions made in the end, but very worrying that they were even dreamt up in the first place.

    I really hope the EU negotiations are better planned.

    1. Hope
      May 22, 2017

      No, Alan. How many times are we paying tax for social care? NI, community charge and add on in community charge. So much of our taxes are wasted. Priorities the old vulnerable and needy British citizen in the U.K. first. Why should an immigrant walk into the country and be entitled to exactly the same as a British citizen who has paid all their lives? Absolutely not. It might be the politicos dream in Euroland and the traitors of Euroland here, but not me.

      Walk into the US and see what health or social care you get without paying in the pot. No, no, no. How many foreigners in receipt of public services without contributing or contributing an adequate amount? How many still flying get treated and fly home? How many interpreters do we pay for and why should we! I think a disasterous Corbyn spell would give a good shake up at Westminster that it deserves.

      1. alan jutson
        May 23, 2017


        I agree with all you say, and have made the same point on this site many times, but the simple fact is someone somewhere has to pay for services, and if we want more health cover and more social care then the funds have to be found from somewhere.
        The sensible place to start is general taxation and or National Insurance.

        You can argue all night long about the government getting too involved in many aspects of our life, and being inefficient, and I would agree, you can also argue that perhaps we should look at those who pay the most contribution get the most cover, those who pay the least contributions (in terms of years) get the most basic, and I may agree again.

        The simple fact is Mrs May and her advisers have made a huge mistake, which may cost her very dear indeed, her second mistake was to not admit they got it wrong, her third mistake is to try and cover it up by saying we did not mean it. her fourth mistake is to not now put a figure on any capping.

        Strong and stable leadership it ain’t.

  14. Jerry
    May 22, 2017

    “I am glad the Prime Minister has confirmed that the social care policy will be set out in more detail in a Green Paper with a proper consultation”

    Well that will be OK then, assuming that Mrs May has one of the weakest government majorities since the Labour government of 1978/9, otherwise the whole nine yards of the policy as set out in the manifesto will be voted through on the nod by dutiful Conservative MPs no doubt, just as the Poll tax was voted through. Oh and what would such a weak government do for Mrs May’s strong Brexit…

    “That was why I decided to consult through this site on the changes.”

    You did no such thing, or at least you have no choice about it, (published or not) you were being told what people were and still are thinking. What is more when has so many often vehemently disagreeing commentators been agreeing with each other?!

    “This means there are now two ways the proposals are more generous than current policy.”

    You still miss the real issue here, States theft of dead peoples wealth even though these people have paid all due taxes etc over a life time of work, and those who will be affected first are those who have paid the most into what appears to have been a state run Ponzi scheme since the post war settlement. As I said before, if the state really can not afford to pay out on peoples National Insurance policies then it can not afford to cut taxes.

  15. protester
    May 22, 2017

    Last sentence.
    They won’t, but their offspring will.

    Despite my MP being the very, very worthy and heroic London Bridge resuscitator ( who will get in anyway)
    I will be throwing my vote away on someone else as a (pointless ) protest at the gross ineptitude of recent events.

    1. Narrow Shoulders
      May 23, 2017

      None of the above

      Rule 47 ( 1 ) ( d )

  16. zorro
    May 22, 2017

    May I suggest that it would have been better to state that there would be a cap on care costs which of course wasn’t in the manifesto and was explicitly rebutted by the health secretary. What a joke/cock u/manifesto of chaos (delete as appropriate). Are we supposed to believe that T May will carry any weight with such inane stupidities and ridiculous elephant traps in negotiations with Europe – Breakfast means Breakfast, red, white and blue and all true. She, as expected, is being roasted alive (quite rightly) by Andrew Neil!


    1. Leslie Singleton
      May 22, 2017

      Dear Zorro–Personally I had to switch it off because I could not stand her ridiculous non answers to Neil’s initial questions. All the new and honest woman stuff (front page of The Mail) went right out of the window before it got going. Terrible to watch. People will say that at least Corbyn is honest and open with his inanities.

      1. Chris
        May 23, 2017

        Theresa May was utterly inadequate, and really an insult to the intelligence of ordinary people. The constant reiteration of meaningless soundbites in response to Neil’s questions, is not acceptable. I am afraid she is not PM calibre.

  17. Cliff. Wokingham.
    May 22, 2017

    RG40 1UY

    John, just for clarity, will the deferred payment be subject to interest charges while the other spouse remains in the couple’s matrimonial home?

  18. Nig l
    May 22, 2017

    Sorry but looks a shambles. Either you have changed therefore have u turned under pressure or you haven’t u turned and nothing has changed. In any event not much difference between selling the house whilst still alive and the Local Government taking a lien and selling after death. In any event it is another inheritance tax.

    Incidentally on the same day that Theresa May was saying we would be stronger out of the EU when when during the campaign she specifically stated we would be more secure within the Union. That was about a year ago. So which is it? Certainly another U turn.

    1. nigel seymour
      May 23, 2017

      Agree with your first comment – it’s a complete shambles. There are numerous perspectives and individual scenarios that come into play on this subject and there is no one size fit’s all. Could the gov not look at providing some form of SC insurance over and above NI that ensures folks can keep their homes. When Brexit deal is concluded then we should ensure that any immigrant coming into this country starts to pay from day one Tax,NI,NHS.

      1. zorro
        May 24, 2017

        I think that there should be a discrete SC insurance tagged onto NICS with an upper limit on contributions to own care if savings available. I think that this would be the least unpopular option and most politically acceptable.


  19. Terry
    May 22, 2017

    I have to ask the question ” What did previous Governments actually do about this situation”?

    It is both sickening and laughable that both Labour and LibDems, when in government, were happy to allow councils to take the homes of the poor people taken into long-term care.

    They did nothing to address this dire situation whereby those who had saved to buy their own homes were force to sacrifice them, when those who did nothing but take from the State were spared any such inconvenience.
    Whatever happened to rewarding those who worked hard to get where they were?
    And why are these same parties claiming “Horror” that the situation has been rightly addressed in such a fair manner? For they did NOTHING.

  20. John
    May 22, 2017

    Providing for State funded residential home care is a new State benefit brought on by increased longevity.

    Some want it paid for our of increase National Insurance by those in work. I get their thinking, NI bands are between just under £6k up to £45k so it would be paid for proportionately by those on lower wages and loaded on the young. Saving the value of a home that these young ones struggle to afford. Lets spend it all today and leave the next generation to pick up the bill.

    This goes to the heart of what it is to be Conservative. Be independent, fund your own life style, small state, no barriers to opportunity but provide a basic safety net for those that fall off that hill.

    It seems greed had entered here. I wonder whether some of our new Conservatives are ex social welfare Labour supporters who wrongly thought that because the value of their house massively increased they became Conservatives. They want to keep the value of their house, they want the young to pay for their care, they want big welfare state and don’t want to fund their own lifestyle.

    1. FFS
      May 22, 2017

      Rubbish. Telling that that has been posted.
      House price inflation is irrelevant. Even if the house was the same price as when bought.It’s the house we want going to our children.

      1. Leslie Singleton
        May 22, 2017

        Dear FFS–Of course there are some like me who don’t care what you want for your children–Maybe your children should be looking after you instead of lusting after your house, which they will no doubt sell soonest in any event because chances are they live elsewhere, not in same village as in days of yore. I cannot see why a house should be any kind of special asset.

        1. FFS
          May 24, 2017

          How wise you are. I have taken what you say on board.
          ( I’m lucky, they both live less than 10 mins walk from me , as in days of yore.)

          1. Leslie Singleton
            May 25, 2017

            Dear FFS–Yes that does make you one of the lucky ones but why your children should inherit (even) your (nearby) house while the rest of us pay your bills still escapes me–My thinking may be warped because I don’t own a house.

    2. Narrow Shoulders
      May 23, 2017

      The elephant in your post is the basic safety net. Those whose homes will be subject to lien will be paying while others get the same care for nothing. That is not a basic safety net.

    3. Sir Joe Soap
      May 23, 2017

      Either the state provides insurance or it doesn’t.
      It can’t take the premiums on the basis that it does and then give nothing (or anything it feels like giving) back.
      We live in an age of contracts when things need to be written down in a legally binding form rather than in a manifesto which can just be changed at will.
      Why can’t we just have a manifesto which is legally binding please?

      1. Leslie Singleton
        May 23, 2017

        Dear Sir Joe–What?–And have the lawyers make even more money, and endlessly arguing with the Government to boot, paid for by disagreeing beaten Deep Pockets? I think not–It has never been the case that the Manifesto has had to be complied with.

  21. agricola
    May 22, 2017

    Whatever the PM confirmed in your final sentence the house would have to be sold on death to pay off the social care costs minus £100,000. This is a totally unfair hike in Inheritance Tax for the progeny of those unfortunate enough to have suffered a disease that was not treatable in hospital. It penalises those who have led a responsible financial life while putting no burden on the irresponsible and profligate. There are now a list of diseases you cannot afford to get because they have to be supported at home or in a care home. This is not a NHS free at the point of need. It would be fair to ask what you have been doing with all the NI contributions you have collected since it’s introduction. I see it as a result of incompetent financial management by successive governments and the civil service.

  22. Anonymous
    May 22, 2017

    Using the equity from the family home is not the objection. Paying over the odds for care is – if it is to subsidise others in the same care.

    By all means, get tough and realistic. When are the consequences of refusing to work going to be felt by those who refuse to work ?

  23. FFS
    May 22, 2017

    All they have to do
    Is start telling the truth.
    Farage Pm, Davis ok, Pritti Patel seems ok, Redwood directing operation with his feet up in the background. Rees Mogg, ditch the little boy haircut and languid manner and get fighting.
    Nadine for welfare

  24. Anonymous
    May 22, 2017

    ” London nurses quit NHS in droves to become um’s personal carers and to get richer ! ”

    Daily Mail headline 2018

    1. Anonymous
      May 22, 2017

      *Mum’s* not ‘um’s’

  25. Oliver
    May 22, 2017

    We all know you know which way is up. Whoever rejected Dinot and produced the ludicrous Dementia tax clearly hasn’t got a clue.

    And worse, May is exposed as not being any smarter than anyone else who got into Oxford to read Geography, certainly a joke degree at the time she did it.

    Some grown ups need to sort her out and fast, because this total cock-up shows that this crowd must be believing their own publicity, and everything they want to run with needs seriously sanity checking by some people with the intellectual horsepower to at least grasp the issues involved. Can you give us some confidence such people (All Souls level brains in other words) are getting in the room to restrain these clowns?

    1. not all souls
      May 22, 2017

      Agreed Oliver.
      and you don’t need to be All Souls to get this, just intelligent.

    2. Leslie Singleton
      May 22, 2017

      Dear Oliver–Agreed that rightly or wrongly Geography was deemed easy to get in to and easier still to pass at the time she did it

    3. John Finn
      May 22, 2017

      Whoever rejected Dinot and produced the ludicrous Dementia tax clearly hasn’t got a clue.

      What do you mean “introduced” ? As for the Dilnot proposals – i n what way would, a £72k cap help someone in Burnley, say, with a home worth £90k. Oh yeah – their relatives would be left with the princely sum of £18k while the million pound homeowner leaves £928K.

      With a “cap” and “floor” model May has probably managed to hit on the best solution. It’s certainly better than anything we’ve had in the past.

  26. Richard1
    May 22, 2017

    Mrs May just about survived Andrew Neil, but could have done without this shambles. I have taken the liberty of replying to her latest email appealing for my support and requesting her to consult colleagues as well as private advisers before announcing policy in future. I also hope she will keep the cap flexible and not be browbeaten into agreeing £70k in time for the election, thereby loading another huge open ended liability on future taxpayers. As ever, doing the right thing for long term economic strength is much harder than dishing out unlimited fruit from the magic money tree (= the “top 5%” or “corporations”) as Labour’s comical spokespersons are proposing.

    1. Anonymous
      May 22, 2017

      They have to really start spanking the work shy for some political balance.

      1. Leslie Singleton
        May 23, 2017

        Dear Anon–Ridiculously, spanking is now deemed common assault

  27. fedupsoutherner
    May 22, 2017

    I just wish she could have answered Andrew Neil better when he asked her about the ‘dire consequences of a hard Brexit’. Why should they be dire? You are always telling us of the advantages John so why couldn’t she say something positive instead of leaving viewers uncertain about Brexit and wondering if it will be a disaster in the making. Mrs May is in serious danger of flunking the whole election and that would be a disaster.

  28. not scared
    May 22, 2017

    Has anyone considered the advisors and promoters are Eu plants on busy vulnerables ?

  29. John E
    May 22, 2017

    It’s just being filed in the round bin marked “Too difficult” isn’t it?

  30. Prigger
    May 22, 2017

    The real debate is whether Mrs May and the Manifesto makers scored a “Home Goal” or an “Own Goal”

  31. Doh!
    May 22, 2017

    To win the Election decisively all Mrs May needed to do was NOTHING.

    The Opposition parties were self-defeating; in fact, defeated from the outset.

    The consquences could be dire even if the Tory party returns with the same number of seats for Brexit, for the unity of the United Kingdom…everything!

    The postal votes will be returning very soon. Mrs May now has to explain something complex, even if it is excellent, in very very simple terms or, lose.

    If she does win and it is now “IF” the persons responsible for the Manifesto fiasco should not be anywhere closer to the Cabinet than the Downing Street cat,who I hear has gone to the eternal mousing hunt in the great tree in the sky.

  32. JM
    May 23, 2017

    The policy was correct. Why should people on modest incomes pay tax just so that other people’s children can inherit? We save for a rainy day. If it does not start to rain when we need care, when does it start to rain? I prefer the idea of a minimum threshold below which you do not contribute to a cap.

    Backing down is weak. She should have made the case. It does not bode well for the Brexit negotiations.

    Serious lack of leadership and strength, which is what I thought that this election was all about; it is, after all, the PM’s chosen territory.

  33. Denis Cooper
    May 23, 2017

    Great, so now we will have a ridiculed and discredited Prime Minister leading us into the Brexit negotiations, as well as trying to keep the country calm in the face of terrorism. I hope the supposed Tory supporter who cleverly coined the term “dementia tax” is pleased with his handiwork, and the real damage he will now have done to our national interest.

    1. rose
      May 23, 2017

      The real dementia tax is the extra tax we will all have to pay under Corbyn to provide the care he has guaranteed. And a universtiy tax, a housing tax, etc etc. This must be rammed home to people.

      1. rose
        May 23, 2017

        PS However correct the policy – and it wasn’t quite – it should never have been slipped into a manifesto for the Brexit election.

        Not actually reading the manifesto themselves, people were bound to take fright, or the media and opposition on their behalf. Three separate perceived assaults on the elderly should not have been made, and absolutely not on their homes.

        It should have been announced that the difficult matter of care would be discussed across the parties and widely consulted on, to arrive at a non-party solution, after the election. Heating allowances should not be taken away from the English while leaving them with the Scots. Tampering with the triple lock at a time when inflation was rising was quite risky enough.

        However much the young men around her tell the PM how well old people have done, it doesn’t make it true. “Intergenerational unfairness” is a daft concept when you consider how many of the young now go to university, take long haul flights, eat out at restaurants, binge drink, get a lot of help with childcare from their parents, and on house purchase, in which they have benefited from rock bottom interest rates.

        Meanwhile old people have lost years of interest on their hard-earned savings, which was much needed to supplement the meagre pension. It often took them a decade or more to buy the houses which they now feel are threatened, while young people aren’t expected to wait that long, though in practice they will now have to, because of mass immigration.

        The difficulty faced by the young is overpopulation, not “intergenerational unfairness.” The problems flowing from this horrendous mistake made by the political class are too long to list. Old people are the main group who know all this and will not succumb to the Willetts doctrine.

        The worst thing about the PM is that she wants to do too much. As in her speeches where she tries to say too much. Brexit is more than enough for a legacy. Now she risks losing it altogether.

  34. Evan Owen
    May 23, 2017

    Dear John.

    Could you explain how promising to continue to protect 40% of England’s landscape fits in with the desire to build millions of new homes? To me they seem incompatible given the fact that Green Belt is suffocating our cities and National Parks are forcing locals out, international human rights lawyers describe it as soft eviction or voluntary resettlement.

  35. Peter
    May 23, 2017

    May is untrustworty. I believe her main motivation is personal ambition and all else is secondary. I am still not convinced she will achieve a satisfactory
    Brexit deal.

    Meanwhile, she has tried to sneak in an attack on the assets of the elderly hoping that the Brexit issue will carry her to victory.

    As others point out the family home is still at risk. If dementia costs don’t claim it, then inheritance tax will capture it later.

    I will not vote Conservative this time. Against Labour she should succeed anyway, but there is no point in encouraging her with a bigger share of the vote

    1. rose
      May 26, 2017

      I am very afraid that millions of you are going to do this, not to encourage her, and we shall have a Corbyn government. You probably all think you are the only principled, original thinker, and that everyone else is voting for her.

  36. hefner
    May 23, 2017

    It is clear: this strong and stable dementia tax cock-up is all because of the EU.

  37. Javelin
    May 24, 2017

    The problem is the world will see hundreds or thousands of old people flying to Switzerland to commit suicide before falling into senility. The UK Government will look utterly deprave.

  38. Lindsay McDougall
    May 24, 2017

    The policy as originally set out in the manifesto was the right one. Not for the first time, the retired elderly should be ashamed of themselves for diverting resources away from the working population and the young.

    For any nation, investing in yesterday is a bad idea.

Comments are closed.