Today the Nasty Party strikes yet again. This time they are going after old people and their homes and financial assets. The spin on this is that as people get elderly they may incur costs for social care such as care homes. The Torys are claiming that no person would need to sell their home to fund this.
On the face of this this sounds like a good idea, however lets dig further into the plan. As we cannot trust what they say at face value. Remember the slogan making work pay, well what they actually meant wasn’t about helping workers at all, it was about cutting benefits and social welfare to drag those who relied on them into poverty.
Corporate subsidies by the tax payer under the Torys has reached a whopping £93Billion, more than the education, housing and welfare combined
Yes Poverty is the actual word, we now have 3.9million yes Million people in persistent poverty, and also looking towards record levels of child poverty by 2020!
Now back to the recent announcement. Like I said, at a quick glance, and listening to the sound bites, this sounds like a good plan! However not all is what it seems.
The threshold for the cap is £100,000 this is higher than the current £23,000 so on the face of it is a good thing, however the current cap only applies to those who receive state help when in private care homes. The tory policy will apply to any state help at all, from council care home, to even those who receive help within their own home.
So this policy will actually impact negatively on more people, and considering the value of the property, the average being £215,000.
They are also stating that its a difficult choice that has to be made, due to the limited budget available. However does this stack up?
Currently education spending is approximately £60billion, Housing benefit is £27billion welfare is about £3 billion.
Corporate subsidies by the tax payer – a whopping £93Billion, clearly this isn’t a case of a limited budget, but a clear choice on the value they place on a human life.
But I hear you say, they state that a person wont have to sell their house, unlike currently. Well this isn’t as clear cut as they make it. The way in which this will be don will be through the banks, with equity release products.
So a hard working person will buy a house (if they can afford it these days) pay a mortgage and interest to the bank. Then when its paid off they may get to live in it mortgage free for a number of years, and if they happen to then need social care, essentially give it back to the bank.
This means that the generation behind them will most likely have to sell the property to cover the costs anyway, so it just moves the burden from one generation to another, but the house still gets sold any way. And although this isn’t a death tax (as the government are not the recipients), the interest on the equity release means the banks stand to profit finely from this, and also it runs the risk that the debt of their parents, actually then becomes their debt.
Along side the changes to how much you have to pay to access an estate,( which is going up from £500) could mean that a large portion of properties would go unclaimed, and then either be handed back to the bank, or claimed by the government estate.
This is just one issue with their manifesto and how it will benefit, the few and the wealthy, and that’s before we start on items like winter fuel payments, and the scrapping of free school meals.
Sorry, just preparing for the eventual take over.
Whilst scrolling through my regular political feeds, I noticed a very small piece of information that got me thinking, that of the George Osbourne using tax payer money in order to convince Chinese investment in British nuclear power. Such a small detail in larger article, but got me thinking, do the Chinese own British power? Is our electricity produced by Chinese owned companies? Well, quite simply put, yes.
What’s that I hear you ask? Is that it? A small paragraph and that’s it? Well, if you insist I’ll dig a little deeper.
Wait, hold on, foreign corporations own far more of our “public sector”?
That’s right, foreign companies are buying huge amounts of British businesses. Over the last 12 years, Chinese investment alone in the UK is at over £25.5 billion. That’s a lot of business you can buy with that sort of money, so let’s take a look at what they actually own.
Well, As long as it’s only the Chinese right?
No, everyone around the world is buying British “public services”.
Currently, Our Trains and Buses, An essential service to many, are owned by Chinese, French, German and Dutch companies. When you get on the bus to work, aside from a bad smell and someone with their bag on the seat so you’re probably going to have to stand, you’re also hit with the realisation that your fare goes straight out of this country and into another countries economy. When you’re complaining about your train being late, grab your phone and key in the dealing code for France, as French companies are the biggest foreign investors in British Rail systems. Its +33 for anyone actually wanting to try it.
Thirsty? How about a nice, refreshing glass of water? Great, the Chinese own that too. At least six water companies within the country are predominantly owned by Chinese investors. Every time you fill up that kettle, the Chinese are profiting. Let’s face it, we’re British, the amount of tea we drink means a lot of profits for those Chinese corporations. Every time you shower, someone in Beijing might as well be showering in your money.
Foreign investors profit from our day to day lives, and out government lets them. This money is taken directly out of our economy, and the Politicians argue about the lack of money in the economy. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out the stupidity here.
p.s. Today’s article is sponsored by the question mark, with the amount I’ve use I think I’ve made a decent amount. Let’s hope my payment comes in pounds sterling….
This is an article I didn’t intend on writing. Quite often the bias of the media is claimed by all sides of the spectrum, and most can evidence selected examples to prove their point.
I’m not going to try to argue it one way or the other, nor try a scientific breakdown of the coverage to ascertain whether this really is the case. What I will do is highlight two incidents and the approach of coverage from these. You can then make up your own mind if these are fair, or not, or biased or not.
The issue at hand is that between the recent gaffs by both Dianne Abbott and Philipp Hammond.
Her recent gaff in the LBC interview with Nick Ferrari have been well published, and I wont argue, its pretty critical that a potential Home Secretary knows how many police are on the beat and how they will be costed. Without a doubt the interview was an absolute car crash, this isn’t the first, not is it the last time she has made errors, or seems to have poorly prepped for an interview.
So the media channel I will focus on will be the BBC. How did they report on this and what then happened following this.
Firstly – they had her on the daily politics show where the forced her to listen back to the car crash interview, and then promptly tried to ridicule repeatedly.
Also on their website they ran the below articles
They also had a BBC trending page for her
not just that, a lot of the articles were tagged in the main news page, not buried amidst the election 2017 page, making them far more prominent.
The next gaff which we will look at will be that of Philip Hammond
Philip Hammond appeared with John Humphrys on BBC radio and made a claim that there’s a £58 billion hole in Labour’s funding. A figure which is incorrect and even was challenged by Humphrys as he pointed out Hammond’s claim that Jeremy Corbyn ’s manifesto ‘doesn’t add up’ relied on combining current spending and capital spending, which is something even he doesn’t do in his budget. When challenged on this, his response was just – its does add up, even when Humphrys adds the details that have been added and it actually breaks down how and where the expenditure takes place.
So either he has forgotten how spending works and is blatantly incompetent or he was spinning a pack of lies.
Now this isn’t the main part of the story which makes it similar to Dianne Abbott, what happened during this interview as well was that he didn’t appear to know the true cost of HS2.
Not just this the BBC even prompted him with what the correct figure was as well and he denied it would cost that much.
Despite this admission on a BBC radio show the only BBC report that can be found from this is the below
this is a single video buried deep in the BBC, and hard to find unless you know what you are looking for. There are no articles available to talk about this, nothing appears in news of even the politics or elections sections.
Now the argument could be levied, that this only happened today, yes that is true but look at the time stamps for Dianne Abbott and the articles appeared in the minutes and hours after her LBC interview.
I will let you make up your mind, but I would ask you this. if the mainstream media isn’t covering something that seems like big new, ask yourself why.
With the Election campaigning in full flight, the issue of Party spending plans is under scrutiny. But what can history tell us about how parties manage the economy and the national debt.
With the release of the Labour Party Manifesto there has been a lot of scrutiny about the spending commitments that have been outlined in this. Its been repeated a number of times that Labour will ‘bankrupt’ the economy. Does history back up this claim, than Labour spend and increase, debt, while the Conservatives pay it back?