Westminstenders: Silly Season

[RedToothBrush]

It's that time of year again when politicians seem to completely lose their marbles in order to impress the faithful. And it is beginning to feel like conference season is increasingly an exercise in religious ferver to the party rather than considering what's in the best interests of the whole country.

Labour have got off to a good start before their conference opens, by almost starting complete melt down.

The Tories have promised to break from convention and try and over shadow the others, so that's something to look forward to.

And early this week we have the supreme Court ruling which could, regardless of which direction it swings, have massive ramifications for our democracy.

Big week ahead.

"you can advocate with social services for them to meet the safeguarding obligation even if the person is resisting."

Can SS force people to pay for carers at home ?
Or force them to let carers in ?
(regardless of whether they have means to pay)
Very difficult to get somone permanently sectioned, so can they in effect section an old person by forcing them into a home ?
(and which home would accept someone furiously resisting ?)

I'd expect SS would be proactive in trying to persuade them to accept help, but I don't know how far legally they could force them, unless they endanger a vulnerable partner say
and whether SS would actually attempt to go to court, even if they could ?

lonelyplanet 😂
Well at least we can't (fairly !) complain now that both parties have the same policies

Tory = work until you drop dead / reach 75
labour = free carers for all 65+

Interesting to see the details later and also how popular it is: increase taxes to pay for it all
people sometimes say they would pay higher taxes, but in the privacy of the voting booth .....

Lewis Goodalll@lewis*_goodall

Now McDonnell pledges a new social care service, free at the point of use, funded by:
“a fair taxation system where everybody pays their way.”

In other words, higher taxes for some.
#lab19

Thanks for that Emily it’s not that he is without care, he isn’t and he is paying for it. The safeguarding angle I hadn’t really considered so that was helpful. In our situation i don’t think he’s currently unsafe, it’s more about where is the best place for him to be to live the remainder of his days tbh.

The point I wanted to get across to those talking “assets” and “inheritance” is that someone’s home isn’t merely an “asset” it’s their home (that emotional connection clearly applies whether they own it or not too!)

Getting someone to the point where they decide for themselves that their “home” is no longer the best place for them is bloody hard, and the thought of leaving it permanently seems to be too much. At his age though, I would seriously question how long “permanently” in reality will be sad.

wealthy friends complain about not being able to get a GP appointment , but refuse to even consider going private

I'm not wealthy but would consider a private GP appointment. But near us they charge £120! I'd be happy to pay £30 if it meant I could see someone right away. But I think an easy solution would be to fine for missing appointments and not cancelling if the person doesn't have dementia. Even with all the difficulty of getting appointments, people make them and don't go.

I hope it goes a lot further and forensically recognises that since the Bill of Rights, "The Monarch" has become "The Government" and the government must consider itself bound by the previous restrictions enjoyed by the Monarch. Which might make constitutional matters a little clearer hmm moving forwards. If the Monarch cannot act unlawfully, then neither can the government. Which seems a fair state of affairs ?*

Not possible. Their job is purely to decide if lawful or not and, if not, whether to provide a remedy.

The courts now take a safeguarding risk very seriously indeed. And Social Services don’t want to be found failing in their statutory duty. The problem with paying for the complex care needs that really start to eat into assets is that it opens people up not just to the risk of coming to harm but also having pressure put on them by a partner or relative to keep those needs hidden as with my MIL. I was told by Social Services after her death that in effect she was guilty of abuse since she had failed to care for him. Had the GP flagged the situation to them cussed as she was they would have had to find a way to remove him from the situation. Even before we found him a good home they supported us in getting him equipment that gave him back his dignity etc. and made his life so much better.

I can’t see why anyone can put their right to inherit over the care of the elderly whether it is a fairer inheritance tax or the current means tested system.

Louise Yes, in practise I doubt there are many cases where people hang around in care homes for years whittling down the proceeds of the sale of property until they run out. My FIL had a lovely gang on his floor, it was a pleasure to take my dog in and experience their delight, particularly since they experienced it on repeat every ten minutes. None was still there after 18 months

But I think an easy solution would be to fine for missing appointments and not cancelling if the person doesn't have dementia. Even with all the difficulty of getting appointments, people make them and don't go.

I know I'm in a minority (well me and a former boss) but part of the problem is peoples perception of it as "free" which they then equate with "of no value".

When I worked in a small software company, we had a salesman (well, the salesman) used to love to write "free training" on quotes and invoices. Which, as the MD pointed out meant it then had no value in further negotiations. What he should have done, is put : "Training - £2,500" on the invoice, and a line below saying "Introductory discount: £2,500". The overall effect was the same, but then the company could point out they had given £2,500 worth of training to the customer, not "fuck all" which was what "free training" looked like.

From Paul Brand, ITV:

BREAKING: I understand Community Union will also roll in behind UNISON and back today’s Brexit motion committing Labour to remain. Things slowly edging in that direction ahead of this afternoon’s votes on Brexit motions.

Union source: “It’s a useful exercise in reminding everyone the unions are NOT Len McCluskey. And that the last time the unions split from the party leadership in this manner and such a great degree, was when they took the hard left on in the 80s...and won”.

Not possible. Their job is purely to decide if lawful or not and, if not, whether to provide a remedy

With all due respect, before that, they need to explain why they have oversight (if indeed they are ruling). Otherwise what they decide is irrelevant anyway.

I don't like the idea we have a legal view that the government is above the law. Governments thus constituted have never ben good news for their own citizens and quite often citizens of other countries too.

Does this mean someone will come and help us get breakfast and get ready for work for a decade or so?
(Quite frankly that would really help me now.)

Their LordanLadyships will deliver their judgement at 10.30 tomorrow.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49795111

Bozza will be in NYC, city of his birth. Maybe Saj will revoke his citizenship so he has to stay there?

Bozza will be in NYC, city of his birth. Maybe Saj will revoke his citizenship so he has to stay there?

maybe, like a salmon, he has to return to spawn ?

Anyway, didn't he (famously ?) renounce his US citizenship ? Something that's been keep from the US press (as DB noted, a lot of USians aren't great fans of people who do that .....)

Please don’t make me think about BJ spawning!

Those polls were very interesting, but I noticed that there wasn’t one for leaving with a deal (presumably TM’s WA, as they’re not going to get one of their own) on 31 October. Surely this is the most important one, at least how it compares with the no deal version? If the Tories did OK in that one as well, maybe it would bring some more of them to their senses?

He has, or is in the process of renouncing, but Saj's Law says you can be a citizen of anywhere you are able to apply to, and un-renouncing is possible. But very expensive.

The mass-wave of renouncing is a probably unintended consequence of US anti-terrorist laws which force all banks who trade in the USA to share information about all their customers. This revealed many US citizens by birth who did not file US tax returns on their non-US earnings, as they are required, Gets your account frozen till you pay up on 100% of your income.

He has, or is in the process of renouncing, but Saj's Law says you can be a citizen of anywhere you are able to apply to, and un-renouncing is possible. But very expensive.

I did wonder why he would throw his shot at being a US president away so readily

Has he actually renounced, though? Surely it's still part of his dickish game plan.

Recalling what Terry Gilliam said, it takes a while.

He is a big wanker so, who knows.

Has he actually renounced, though? Surely it's still part of his dickish game plan.

I believe it can be reacquired if you have the money.

Imagine being a naturalised American not being able to be President, while this tousled twat can just walk in ...

With all due respect

Which means actually you don't respect me at all. Don't be so damn rude.

They will explain why it is unlawful, but they're not going to get involved in constitutional matters such as the one you describe. A Court doesn't explain why the Court has the power. Utter nonsense.

The Court explains the judgment and why it's been reached, given the LAW (not constitution) at the time.