To consider the Conservatives' manifesto pretty decent on the whole?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Pretty decent in terms in principles, that is ... as so often with manifestos it's too thin on costings

Main points here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Full version here: www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Just seen this on Twitter Apparently someone from the City was approached months ago about an "insurance product"

But this isn't insurance, it's equity release and that's already a thing! You won't need an insurance policy not to sell your home whilst you remain alive. I'm not happy about the Tories policy on this but this is scaremongering..

Funnily enough quite a lot of labour people (as far as I can tell) support it, although the labour leaders obviously don't. Whereas con voters on tinternet now saying 'i won't vote now' - I suspect they will in the end though...

That's because of the 'I'm alright Jack' rule. They didn't care about all the other policies that people were talking about in the last 7 years because they didn't affect THEM. This one does. Ergo, they're suddenly bothered.

The crisis in social care has been going on for a long while. Every government in the past has under estimated the consequences of living longer. We have such a great health system that we have shot ourselves in the foot soon to speak. The Tories solution as May has set out is not the only solution. I agree that if you are extremely well off then you should pay for your care. The most vulnerable should not. But the amount you pay to be fair should be capped so you are no bled dry. The fairest thing to do would be for everyone to take responsibility for the elderly. So a couple of pence on tax for all would keep the social care going for a while. The difficulty us that the problem is ever increasing. So taxes will have to go up. That is a reality I think. I do not think that inheritance should be took into account. But if the families took more responsibility in the care if their elderly as they do in other countries then you would inherit more because you have alleviated the cost of care. But I am asking what us Mays real motive behind this big change in social care and the answer in my mind us the privatisation of the social care system and eventually the NHS except for AandE. Its only my opinion.

What's interesting is that there was no 'floating' of the policy in the press to gauge reaction before it was introduced. I suppose there was very little time to do that once it was decided to hold an election.

Means testing winter fuel allowance and dropping triple lock are always being talked about - but the switch from the Dilnot proposal to this was 'unheralded' as far as i know. Although obviously there was some doubt about whether Dilnot would ever be implemented, after it was put back to 2020.

"I agree that if you are extremely well off then you should pay for your care."
But - and I appreciate this is repetitive - why do people not then think if you are extremely well off you should pay for your cancer treatment and heart surgery as well? Or maybe people do think this, and that is the next step.

The extremely well off are already paying for their domiciliary care - anyone with cash savings of over £23k has to pay. And is there an income means test as well? I don't know.

The new people brought into paying are those with cash savings of less than £23k and a house worth more than £100k. That does include a lot of people who would not be classed as 'extremely well off'.

The question is will May do it or is it yet another delaying tactic like the budget where they said changes to social care are being drafted and they didn't add any more funds to social care for that reason.?

my wealth meagre (such as it is) is for me to use) to give myself some quality of life. To that end - I would use it to buy-in any help I need and not ask the taxpayer to fund me until I get down to that magical £100K that I can pass on.
The trouble is the selfish generations who were 'expecting' an inheritance to pay off their debts from the 'live now pay later' lifestyle they have chosen
I have helped my family in the past and will continue to do so - including downsizing to free up capital so I can continue to pay for whatever help I need.
I recognize that having reached 70 with faculties intact I am not facing 20 years of really ill health (in fact my heart problems mean I will probably not last that long) but it should be borne in mind that many many people do not need a care home or social care for more than a couple of years.
re WFA - I use it to pay for a load of logs - but if it was taken away I would not freeze and neither would most people - it is after all only £4 per week for a household. To my mind to avoid having to means test it would be simpler to remove it from everyone unless they are on pension credit and add the extra £4 per week to either couple or single pensioners who receive PC - the DWP already knows who those are - simple.

What's interesting is that there was no 'floating' of the policy in the press to gauge reaction before it was introduced. I suppose there was very little time to do that once it was decided to hold an election.

But why so ham-fisted? The entire manifesto has the feel that it was rushed. Like a university paper when you don't really know the subject and blather on.

Agree 117 I said ages ago more people will have to pay for their own care. An insurance will soon come out if she pushes this through specifically to cover care costs. I predicted this a fair while ago on other threads when I said what would happen if May got in with a vast majority.

"The trouble is the selfish generations who were 'expecting' an inheritance to pay off their debts from the 'live now pay later' lifestyle they have chosen"

I think if it weren't for the fact that property prices are so high people would not be so attached to the idea of leaving a substantial inheritance. In London/SE it has become apparent over the last few years that it is very very difficult for average earners to become ftbs without someone giving you money for a deposit. That is a significant change from the 90s, and has meant people are keener to give their money to their adult dcs.

Still, lab manifesto is to reduce the iht threshold, which may have a greater impact in some areas where property prices are high.

When will cons tell us the means test threshold for wfa? - speculation is that it will indeed be linked to pension credit.

If you develop dementia you could require care for 10 to 20 years. But I agree about inheritance. It is not a god given or any given thing that you should have an inheritance. There is no entitlement. If your family are generous to leave you something then fine but you shouldn't expect it. I know in law people may get entitlement which someone will point out no doubt.

Pensions they are a laugh a minute! I am a waspie born in early 50s should have got my pension at 60 but won't get it now till I'm 66. My friends pension who retired at 60 is £180 mine will be £150. She gets the heating allowance, I am severely disabled and do not. She gets more a week in pension then I get in ESA. She worked for 40 years paying full stamp, I worked for 40 years paying full stamp. She is 2 years older than me. Sods law or what!

But why so ham-fisted? The entire manifesto has the feel that it was rushed

All the manifestos do. It isn't a one way street.

Labour for example were yesterday having another arguement about Trident and it isn't clear now if the National Grid will be nationalised or not.

It is a snap election so there hasn't been the lead in like there always is.

I read the IFS's view and if only one parent needs long term care, and the other stays alive longer than that, you may in fact get to keep £200k.

The detail will be very important - how does this affect people who need care before retirement age due to disability, and also, how are they going to stop people just putting their house in trust to their children and giving them a right to remain? This policy has an obvious get out clause.

That has been happening for ages putting house in trust. Think you had to do that 7 years before you went into residential care. The Tories will have to shut that door if they pay for your care and want to claim it back when you die bar£100000. But probably they will leave it to you to raise money via equity release till you are down to your last 100 grand.

I read the IFS's view

Not a huge fan of the IFS, but yesterday they stated that these changes do nothing to address the problems with care.

And I know we here have been looking at this from a viewpoint of how it will affect individuals, but if the system is as broken as many are saying, then these sorts of changes will alleviate nothing.

Anyone know what the income means test for social care currently is? Had a quick look and it was suggested that it is linked to pension credit - £189 a week for a single person - but that seems very low?

Yes Piglet, Newsnight was interesting last night - Shadow Defence Minister talking about Trident.

And this was no snap election May planned this for a long while. She wants to destroy all opposition ready for the mist important and real reason for the election The Great Repeal Bill. Here she will push through all right wing reforms and laws. Hundreds if them with little opposition, this is why there must be some strong opposition and I have been trying to get people to vote tactically so there is one. Even if you don't like Corbyn vote for someone else other than Tory so democracy stays in tact. With no opposition there is no democracy.

Any policy that truly tackles the cover costs of social care is going to be unpopular because the money that needed to be raised is so huge

We simply haven't planned and this is government after government at fault it isn't just that private companies cover costs (though that is partly the reason) we have expected too much when paying too little

This is a gamble as it can push many Tory voters away but as their really isn't a middle party with much credibility it's probably a gamble that will pay off

The money has to come from somewhere I am not sure this is the best way

This policy really feels like the essential Theresa May. Why should people who are wealthy through luck - being able to buy a house at the right time 30 years ago etc - not contribute more? No cascading wealth for her. Somebody's going to have to pay for the Brexit mess and old age care is a huge burden on the state. Changes to IHT or Labour's 'death tax' accept societal responsibility for old age care which is preferable for me as long as it is combined with energy into improving quality not simply cutting costs. The Netherlands dementia villages (pretend shops) etc.

Not sure about I come test for social care. Know you are only allowed to have £22k in savings anything above you pay I think but not all and that's where pension credit comes in. If like me you still get a care component of DLA then my care component pays for care I need (as if). If I needed more care then I'm not sure what happens now. I pay for a lady to do my housework and laundry as I cannot do it. My dds do everything else. I won't allow anyone to do my personal care but my lady helps me out if bed in the morning as it takes me so long to get mobile.

All parties should be continuously working on the idea there maybe a snap election

It's hardly something that hasn't been openly spoken about or discussed

I agree it's was planned for quite some time

"No cascading wealth for her"

Ah, you remember that too!

But if the income threshold means test is pension credit then surely many not particularly well off people are already paying for their social care?

It is strangely difficult to find the answer about the income means test on the internet Sost - though I gave up after about three minutes! Various websites start talking about minimum income guarantees, but no snappy answer to the question.

Yes PIP and DLA are not means tested, so presumably it would still be Ok to get these for example, for dementia and then have a relative claim carer's allowance? I mean up to a point,

yes, make perhaps you might re-think calling the IFS it a right-wing conspiracy now?

I do think their criticism that Dilnot's recommendation to provide a spending cap on care would've allowed an easy insurance market to develop is a good one.

If you know the care cap is £300k, I can buy insurance for that at age 30 in case I'm one of the unlucky ones.

OTOH, perhaps the conservatives had reason to reject it if it still didn't raise enough money given the rate the population is ageing. But a better solution could've been a higher £ spending cap rather than this minimum asset guarantee.

I'd like to see a proper expert debate really - spending caps vs minimum asset guarantee, but on the whole you have to side with Dilnot has he would've spent a long time putting the commission recommendation together, so the tories need to explain why they ignored that.