Westministenders: Theresa's Common People

[RedToothBrush]

She came from Oxfordshire she had a thirst for knowledge
She studied geography at Saint Hugh's College
That's where politics
Caught her eye

She told them that her husband was loaded
The press barons said "In that case have a rum and coca-cola"
She said "Fine"
And in thirty seconds time she said

I want to look like common people
I want to do whatever common people do
I want to eat like common people
I want to sleep like common people
Like you

Well what else could Fiona and Nick do
They said "We'll see what we can do"

They took her to a supermarket
I don't know why
But they had to start it somewhere
So it started there
They said pretend you've got no money
She just laughed and said
"Oh you're so funny"
They smiled "Yeah”
Well we can't see anyone else smiling in here

Are you sure you want to live like common people
You want to see whatever common people see
You want to eat like common people
You want to sleep like common people
Like me

But she didn't understand
She just smiled and held Trump’s hand

Order that benefits get the chop
Tell them all to get a job
Promise to bring back the grammar school
Pretend you don’t think them a fool
But still you'll never get it right
'Cause when you're laid in bed at night
Watching the news talking about building the wall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do whatever common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
Whilst you blame it all on the EU
Because that’s all you can do

Sing along with the common people
Sing along and it might just get Brexit through
Laugh along with the common people
Laugh about leaving the EU

It’s the most stupid thing that you will do
Because you think that it is cool
You’ll call them a ‘lying foreigner’
But don’t say we didn’t warn you
You’ll regret saying we are better off out
'Cause everybody hates a benefits tourist

It doesn’t matter if you can’t do the math
With all those pockets that you grease
You’ll win the vote in Bath

You will never understand
How it feels to live your life
With no meaning or control
And with nowhere left to go
You are amazed that they exist
And wish they were all white
So you tell ‘The Big Lie’

Get THE flat above THE shop
Cut your hair and get THE job
Trick some mugs and hire some fool
Pretend you are not really cruel
But still you'll never get it right
Instead you're plotting late at night
About which ‘cockroach’ will take the fall
All have to do is call your mates to fake it all
Yeah

You'll never live like common people
You'll never do what common people do
You'll never fail like common people
You'll never watch your life slide out of view
As we plan to leave the EU
Because there's nothing else left to do

But ‘moan’ about how we don’t want to leave the EU.

Human rights are pretty good in Singapore too eh.

ron If I'd been permanently based in Germany, I would have taken either their excellent state insurance or one of the many mutual health orgs.
afaik, everything is covered, except that the better off pay some prescription costs.

Being above a certain income, I'm allowed to opt out of these and instead take private insurance.
I decided to retain my private insurance because I moved countries so much - and especially for the UK.
Note: this means I don't fund their NHS equivalent. So I pay once only

However one is insured on Germany, the care is pretty much the same and by the same doctors.
Much better service than the NHS, because there is sufficient funding.
Private is really just paying for private room and restaurant meal luxury.
I've always been able to see a GP same day, have bloods done in their inhouse lab, choose any local specialist, no delays if I'd wanted an op - but it's the same for everyone else.

I posted on an earlier thread about a former colleague whose bog-standard rehab after chemo was 6 weeks paid in a Swiss Alps clinic with special organic food, exercise program and meditation.
All to "cleanse" his system and destress.

My total annual amount allowed is 1 million, for iirc €1800 p.a. - I chose to get cheaper premiums in exchange for a high self-pay amount (I've high savings)
Also, my "policy age" is fixed until I claim again, so I am officially much younger

I've only used my insurance once in 30 years, for a very minor knee arthroscopy while living in the UK.
My surgeon said he always preferred his patients after a GA to stay overnight for observation, just to reduce a small risk.
However, he could only offer that to his private patients, because the NHS didn't allow that

I also enjoyed a large private suite with en suite and restaurant standard meals with wide menu choice who cooked to order.
As an Aspie with serious privacy & autonomy issues, that was vital for my wellbeing. Hence insurance.

"The dangers of the presidential-style government Theresa May and her ‘team’ are seeking for the UK"

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/why-theresa-may-s-team-is-dangerous-and-why-you-re-definitely-not-on-it-1-5025062

"A presidential thrust causes more power to accrue as a matter of course to the executive.
The executive: the Prime Minister and her ministers are the repository of the ancient and still relevant Royal prerogative.

Gina Miler’s brave and audacious battle in the courts was centred on the constitutional norm that
parliament – the assembly of our directly-elected representatives – is supreme and above the Executive in many matters.

To many Brits, when that point of law was argued at the High Court and later the Supreme Court, this fact seemed to come as a surprise.

From this immigrant’s point of view,
this lack of knowledge of how the country is governed looks deliberate.

There’s an American saying linked with the concerted and systemic effort to keep women down.
It goes: ‘Keep them barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen.’

In many ways, we, the electorate, are constantly being kept out of the loop like that.
Played.

howabout Your argument about Scotland not being oppressed by England because they participated reminds me of the argument I've often heard wrt Ireland:

That Ireland can't have been oppressed and colonized because they participated in the British Empire, supplying great regiments, leaders and civil servants.
Some Irish people did well under British rule and wanted to stay British.
Many more did not

Many Brexiters still think the solution to the problem of an Irish border is for the RoI to rejoin Britain - and they are exasperated that the RoI won't agree.
Those Brexiters don't understand why the history of how the Irish have suffered under British colonial oppression makes that so repugnant to them.

It seems as if the Tories only care about less wealthy pensioners for their vote. They have form for letting them down:

you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-age-for-woman-to-be-reduced-from-66-to-60

A LOT of people have signed this. I wonder if any of them will vote Tory?

Bigchoc we will have to agree to disagree re the degree of my oppression but I would point out that I am probably better placed to be the judge since I have irn bru and much stronger stuff in my veins and I live under my "oppressor's" rule.

A LOT of people have signed this. I wonder if any of them will vote Tory?

Alienating your core vote is an unusual tactic, Nick and Fiona.

Some interesting calls on R4 Any Answers today, from tory voting pensioners who will not voter for May following the manifesto.

So impressed with the sensible post chemo care in Germany. BCF, nutrition and exercise should be seen as part of the care package here too.

There's a pretty shocking thread running on mn about childbirth and after care (ha ha ha ha) in NHS hospitals atm. There are some absolute heroes working in the NHS, but the service, 'varies'.

Hilbo, yes it would be interesting to know if the cons have been taken by surprise by the negative coverage. I mentioned on another thread that it is unusual to do something so drastic without 'floating' it in the press in advance to assess reaction. i

On the other hand there is some quite positive reaction to it here on mn - why should people with a house get free stuff, anyone with a house worth more than £100k is rich etc.

The odd thing is that anyone with over £23k in cash was already paying, so it's not as if the mega or even medium rich are getting free care at the moment. (And there is alread an elusive income means test which I haven't been able to decipher)

And sorry to hear, way back in the thread, of your mum's illness, BigChoc sounds like your care made all the difference to her later years.

ah, I cross posted woman. I think they have possibly underestimated people's attachment to leaving their property as inheritance.

But I expect the disaffected cons may end up voting con anyway - if only because the alternative is the lab cuts to the iht threshold . In London/SE those would have a much more widespread effect than the social care plans - particularly as many voters already have to pay for domiciliary social care anyway! (see post below. How much money will this actually save?)

On the other hand there is some quite positive reaction to it here on mn
Many of the mn posters make Gengis Khan seem like Gandhi, though.

On the subject of post brexit trade deals, I heard a shocking story today that signals the kind of thing we can expect in our brave and buckaneering new world if we are not too careful.

Under an FTA between NZ and china, Kiwirail, the NZ rail authority, ordered 40 new trains from China. When they arrived, they were found to contain asbestos. Under the terms of the trade deal, instead of the trains being rejected and returned to china, the Chinese manufacturer was allowed to send Chinese workers to New Zealand to do the work removing the asbestos. There was no available information as to the wage rates that were being paid to these Chinese workers - certainly they were below the collective rate for the job, but they may even have been below the national minimum wage. The NZ tribunal had no control over their terms of work, including their health and safety when removing the asbestos.

Under typical FTAs with investor protection, it's very difficult to impose your national standards without risking a damages claim by the investor from the other state.

Shocking story. Here's a link from last year - www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/306327/kiwirail's-asbestos-headache-continues-in-court

£36,000 isn't that expensive for cancer care, Ron. Some of the new targeted drugs are mind bogglingly expensive. We're talking tens of thousands for a months treatment and many people need to stay on treatment for years rather than months. NICE will haggle and bring the price down when they become more established treatments but they won't be cheap.

Again, I love NICE

“Backlash on the doorstep” over “dementia tax”
“Theresa May’s plan to make tens of thousands more people pay for their old-age care from their estates have triggered anger among Tory candidates, who said that the author of the proposal “should be shot”….One candidate standing for re-election said that it could be a disaster. “This plan was coming up on the doorstep this morning and there has not even yet been much coverage it. It is very hard to justify, because people with a house of £300,000 could have a liability now of £200,000. I thought the campaign was just right until this yesterday”. – The Times

This is on the front page of Conservative Home under Newslinks (at the bottom).

I have personally come across a 'True Blue' Conservative who is now no longer intending to vote over the Dementia Tax.

DH has had someone at work who is best described as having a Kipper leaning saying they would rather burn their house down than let the State have their house to pay for their care.

Interestingly there was some fuss on Conservative home that local parties could only order garden signs saying "I'm with Theresa May" and the local party candidates name and Conservative in small letters underneath. And some parties were not happy about this.

This weekend Conservative Party signs have started appearing locally. However they say our local candidate's name and there is no mention of Theresa May....

Make of that what you will but this is Remain Country.

Very interesting Red!

The strange thing is that most people probably won't even end up being affected by it - only one in seven ever need social care? But I think people overestimate the likelihood. Of course that figure may increase as life expectancy grows.

I think the dementia tax thing is a gamble that it won't put true blue Tories off, because they're not going to vote for Corbyn - at worst they will stay at home - and the policy will appeal to the sort of Labour voter who is thinking of voting Tory for the first time.

The gamble may or may not pay off.

We should be taxing dead people's assets - they can't use it and their offspring don't have an automatic right to free money. But this isn't the way to do it.

only one in seven ever need social care

I'm sure that's not right. I think I saw 70% given as an estimate of the proportion of elderly people requiring social care at some point, including care provided in their home (the cost of which is included in this measure).

Yes Mistrigri, and con voters with London/SE property would still probably prefer the social care plans to the reduction in iht threshold that lab will introduce.

I don't know that they're selling the policy that well to voters in fact - many voters may not realise they would have had to pay anyway, if they have cash of more than £23k and meet the income threshold. So they will be no worse off - although they are worse off than if Dilnot cap had been introduced. Apart from Jeremy Hunt on Today, has any other Con politician been grilled on it yet?

Ah, that's interesting mistigri - rather different from my figure!

It may be partly because 70% is the proportion of old people who need care - whereas some of course never get to that age (depending on what age group is being considered here). If you die in your early 70s you may well not need social care. But that can't account for all of the difference between you and me - so looks as though my figures may be wrong!
And then there are the people who need it but don't get it.

It's strange that those people who are furious about having to pay for other people's "benefits" whether free school meals, JSA, DLA etc

• "because people should support themselves" - seem to be the most insistent that their own care in old age should be paid by other people, so that they can keep all their wealth and pass it intact to their descendants.

They want their own costs pooled, but don't want the cost of benefits for the younger generations pooled.

Another example of having cake and eating it.
So I can understand if they also have that attitude wrt Brexit.

Age Uk

http://www.cpa.org.uk/cpa/docs/AgeUK-Briefing-TheHealthandCareofOlderPeopleinEngland-2015.pdf

". Government spending on home care for older people reduced by a fifth between 2010/11 and 2013/14, with 15 per cent fewer older people getting support.

. State spending on meals on wheels has halved in the last three years and approaching two-thirds fewer older people now receive them.

.A similar pattern can be seen as regards day care (including day centres)

. More than a million older people in England now have at least one unmet need for social care, compared to 800,000 in 2010;
this means they receive no help from their local authority or from family, neighbours or friends.

The risk of having an unmet care need is greatest for the oldest and those who live alone" < that's me buggered if I return to the UK >

Age Uk also say (p 16-17)

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Factsheets/LaterLifeeUKfactsheet.pdf?dtrk=true

30% of people use local authority funded care in at least the last year of their life
There are 2.8 million older people with care needs, 900,000 of whom receive no formal support

www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/20/labour-manifesto-keep-planned-tory-benefit-cuts-resolution-foundation?CMP=share_btn_tw
Labour manifesto ‘would keep £7bn of planned Tory welfare cuts’

Analysis by Resolution Foundation shows Jeremy Corbyn’s party would go ahead with most of George Osborne’s planned benefits reductions

Torsten Bell, the Resolution Foundation’s director and Ed Miliband’s former policy chief, lambasted both main parties for their failure to deal with the welfare cuts.

“Tackling the renewed squeeze on living standards that risks seeing incomes actually fall for low and middle income families in the years ahead, should be front and centre of the next government’s purpose,” he said.

“Instead both parties are guilty of neglecting the living standards concerns of working families by allowing George Osborne’s welfare cuts to be rolled out, either in full with the Conservatives or largely intact under Labour’s plans.

“The concerns of low and middle income families are at the heart of Theresa May’s rhetoric but this week was a missed opportunity to live up to it. Improving the living standards of working people is the reason the Labour Party exists at all – something it’s time they remembered.”

The cuts are “heavily concentrated” on low-paid working families and will reduce their incomes by around £1,200 a year, the Resolution Foundation said. In some extreme cases, families will lose up to £3,000 a year.

It comes with the Lib Dems attempting to outflank Labour on welfare by promising to reverse all of Osborne’s cuts package, including the benefits freeze.

I am very stunned and surprised at this. Mainly cos it shows how far the kipperlite thing has infiltrated thinking in Labour party.

con voters with London/SE property would still probably prefer the social care plans to the reduction in iht threshold that lab will introduce.

There is no logical reason why that should be the case, though (except for the blue label. Indigestible policies with blue labels go down better).

ge2017.gritdigital.co.uk/#2017-opinion-poll
2015 General Election results & 2017 live opinion poll

How not to do an 'opinion' poll but how to get voter location data...