LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

rick_chasey

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

So is Boris about to use his majority for something good with finally sorting out social care funding or will it just be a .ajor benefit to wealthy pensioners in the South East?

I'm happy to cough up a bit more NI (would rather it was income tax though as that way pensioners would pay too) if if is going to improve an area that has been neglected for decades.

Will also be interesting to see whether there is enough rebellion that they need opposition votes despite that big majority.

Wouldn't hurt me particularly either but increasing NI has to be about the worst way to fund this and drive a wedge between the generations. Can't say the 'all nighter before deadline' approach inspires confidence that this is a well thought out plan either.

Tories looking after their own voters!

Though tbf, looks like they're scrapping the 'triple lock' so I guess that is the trade off, right?

surrey_commuter

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

kingstongraham

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

Yes, it's not the fact that private individuals pay less that the local authority, but that the local authority can only afford to pay less than cost price.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

rjsterry

kingstongraham said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

Yes, it's not the fact that private individuals pay less that the local authority, but that the local authority can only afford to pay less than cost price.

Not really surprising when you slash LA funding from central government but make no adjustments to the LA obligations.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' cost.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' tax.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

<

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

With illnesses like dementia, it is quite hard to do. If that is something to consider, it has to be planned a long time in advance.

Given the prevalence of it on both sides of my family I am quite worried about the end of my life. I am holding out hope that by the time I get to that age medicine will have advanced enough to not make it as brutal as it has been for my relatives.

It is horrendous. Would not wish it on anyone.

kingstongraham

It is a big tax, and could be funded through an increase in income tax or national insurance eventually, but there is a shortfall that needs filling. It feels fair that those who haven't been paying throughout their life and can afford to stump up do, so those who will be paying throughout their life don't pay double. If that means some 60 year olds get a smaller inheritance, that's unfortunate (for them).

rick_chasey

TBH it's quite a complex topic as there are some really fundamental questions around quality of life and what is actually in both society's and the ill-person's interest.

I have to say that in our own instance the idea our relative got the covid jab before a lot of others when they were basically a living cadaver seemed a waste so early on in the vaccine phase but I could see why it happened.

Pross

I would have thought the solution for the Tories to keep both their promises, that appear contradictory, to improve social care and not put up income tax, NI etc. would be to create a new "care insurance" scheme. Basically the same thing in the end but they can then say "but we didn't increase income tax or NI as we promised". It could then also be applied to pensioner income and maybe an element from inheritances.

Dorset_Boy

Currently the nursing care element is (supposede to be) paid by the NHS.
It is the 'hotel' costs that are paid by the local authority or individual. As stated earlier, the Local Authorities don't pay the market rate, and there are very few local authority owned residential homes. This causes problems as the private homes don't get paid sufficient for the LA placements.

You can already effectively cap your costs if you take independent advice on funding care, but most people think they know better and so just draw down on the financial assets of the person in care until they are effectively exhausted, and the LA then steps in, and an awkward conversation arises with the care provider.

I don't think everyone should be given an amount towards care costs, no matter what their financial position, the contribution should be means tested, but the amount the LAs have available to pay th care providers should be realistic.

Also the 12 week disregard for owning a property probably isn't long enough for people to get the property in a state to go on the market and then for a sale to complete.

surrey_commuter

Pross said:

I would have thought the solution for the Tories to keep both their promises, that appear contradictory, to improve social care and not put up income tax, NI etc. would be to create a new "care insurance" scheme. Basically the same thing in the end but they can then say "but we didn't increase income tax or NI as we promised". It could then also be applied to pensioner income and maybe an element from inheritances.

Surely the benefit BoJo has is that nobody expects him to keep any promise and that there is no downside to his popularity in doing so?

It is hardly like he was elected on the basis of his honesty

His only risk is that his Party use it as an excuse to ditch him

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' tax.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

I had a similar agreement with my mother.
Legal issues aside I couldn't do it when the time came.

rjsterry

Dorset_Boy said:

Currently the nursing care element is (supposede to be) paid by the NHS.
It is the 'hotel' costs that are paid by the local authority or individual. As stated earlier, the Local Authorities don't pay the market rate, and there are very few local authority owned residential homes. This causes problems as the private homes don't get paid sufficient for the LA placements.

You can already effectively cap your costs if you take independent advice on funding care, but most people think they know better and so just draw down on the financial assets of the person in care until they are effectively exhausted, and the LA then steps in, and an awkward conversation arises with the care provider.

I don't think everyone should be given an amount towards care costs, no matter what their financial position, the contribution should be means tested, but the amount the LAs have available to pay th care providers should be realistic.

Also the 12 week disregard for owning a property probably isn't long enough for people to get the property in a state to go on the market and then for a sale to complete.

That last bit wasn't really a problem. You just owe them the difference. Of course if the property doesn't sell at all, then what. Does the person in question actually have an asset?

Pross

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Currently the nursing care element is (supposede to be) paid by the NHS.
It is the 'hotel' costs that are paid by the local authority or individual. As stated earlier, the Local Authorities don't pay the market rate, and there are very few local authority owned residential homes. This causes problems as the private homes don't get paid sufficient for the LA placements.

You can already effectively cap your costs if you take independent advice on funding care, but most people think they know better and so just draw down on the financial assets of the person in care until they are effectively exhausted, and the LA then steps in, and an awkward conversation arises with the care provider.

I don't think everyone should be given an amount towards care costs, no matter what their financial position, the contribution should be means tested, but the amount the LAs have available to pay th care providers should be realistic.

Also the 12 week disregard for owning a property probably isn't long enough for people to get the property in a state to go on the market and then for a sale to complete.

That last bit wasn't really a problem. You just owe them the difference. Of course if the property doesn't sell at all, then what. Does the person in question actually have an asset?

Is there an onus on the person selling to knock the price down to sell in a certain time? I've fortunately never been in that position so really don't know the rules.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' tax.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

I had a similar agreement with my mother.
Legal issues aside I couldn't do it when the time came.

I take her to see her sister and really think we both know when the right time would be. I know I could not put a pillow over her face but think I could sign a piece of paper.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' tax.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

I had a similar agreement with my mother.
Legal issues aside I couldn't do it when the time came.

I take her to see her sister and really think we both know when the right time would be. I know I could not put a pillow over her face but think I could sign a piece of paper.

I suppose it would be easier with legal processes in place.
Not an easy time though.

Dorset_Boy

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Currently the nursing care element is (supposede to be) paid by the NHS.
It is the 'hotel' costs that are paid by the local authority or individual. As stated earlier, the Local Authorities don't pay the market rate, and there are very few local authority owned residential homes. This causes problems as the private homes don't get paid sufficient for the LA placements.

You can already effectively cap your costs if you take independent advice on funding care, but most people think they know better and so just draw down on the financial assets of the person in care until they are effectively exhausted, and the LA then steps in, and an awkward conversation arises with the care provider.

I don't think everyone should be given an amount towards care costs, no matter what their financial position, the contribution should be means tested, but the amount the LAs have available to pay th care providers should be realistic.

Also the 12 week disregard for owning a property probably isn't long enough for people to get the property in a state to go on the market and then for a sale to complete.

That last bit wasn't really a problem. You just owe them the difference. Of course if the property doesn't sell at all, then what. Does the person in question actually have an asset?

Is there an onus on the person selling to knock the price down to sell in a certain time? I've fortunately never been in that position so really don't know the rules.

In theory no, because in theory you should be able to borrow from the LA for as long as is needed and only repay them on sale of the property or death of the person in care.
In reality, the LAs don't have the funds or aren't willing to make the loans.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Dorset_Boy said:

Currently the nursing care element is (supposede to be) paid by the NHS.
It is the 'hotel' costs that are paid by the local authority or individual. As stated earlier, the Local Authorities don't pay the market rate, and there are very few local authority owned residential homes. This causes problems as the private homes don't get paid sufficient for the LA placements.

You can already effectively cap your costs if you take independent advice on funding care, but most people think they know better and so just draw down on the financial assets of the person in care until they are effectively exhausted, and the LA then steps in, and an awkward conversation arises with the care provider.

I don't think everyone should be given an amount towards care costs, no matter what their financial position, the contribution should be means tested, but the amount the LAs have available to pay th care providers should be realistic.

Also the 12 week disregard for owning a property probably isn't long enough for people to get the property in a state to go on the market and then for a sale to complete.

That last bit wasn't really a problem. You just owe them the difference. Of course if the property doesn't sell at all, then what. Does the person in question actually have an asset?

Is there an onus on the person selling to knock the price down to sell in a certain time? I've fortunately never been in that position so really don't know the rules.

There's no time limit to sell. You just get a 12 week grace period and then they start running up a tab to be deducted from the funds when they are realised.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

john80 said:

What interested me was the notion that private individuals pay more than the council. This seems a bit unjust to me in the sense that you are subsidising the council.

it does seem massively unfair but I guess the justification is that the LA is using it's buying power. It does seem strange that the care homes run at a loss to LA funded residents.

I have no idea how the maths would play out but I would look at giving everybody a budget that they can chose how to spend that you would be free to top up with your own funds. That budget would obviously fully fund a basic care home.

I suspect the treasury would block that.

It is amazingly expensive.

I know the "100% inheritance tax" chat here gets people very incensed, but that is basically what it is for people who get certain illnesses, and it's pot-luck who it happens to.

my thought is that if you were designing the system from scratch you would not come up with a system that meant some afflictions were self-funding.

collar and cap is actually quite clever. Those with more than £23k but less than £100k will gain and those with more than £80k will gain.

I would agree.

I think the problem is that the growth of people getting diseases which require that kind of long-term care is way higher than anyone had predicted.

It is amazingly expensive.

Varies from person to person but the costs I have seen in my own family are roughly £45,000 a year for a nursing home.

So clearly it all hinges on your length of stay. You can get pretty much any average number you want from googling (anywhere from 2.3 years to 5.3 years) on terms of average stay as so much of it depends on at what age you go into either social care or nursing care, but on both sides of my family the people lasted well over 10 years.

That's a big ol' tax.

Irony of course is in the Netherlands which is ultimately a private healthcare system, is the state pays for your social and nursing care if you require it, regardless of cost.

So whilst my UK relative had to spend her entire inheritance to keep her alive and looked after, my Dutch relative collected her pension every month and had free care for that whole decade and so in fact accumulated wealth.

And allow euthanasia. Using a sample size of 1 my Mother would be happy to grant me the powers to "finish her off" and I am confident that I would know when that would be and have the balls to do it.

I had a similar agreement with my mother.
Legal issues aside I couldn't do it when the time came.

I can't think of a worse way to round off losing a parent to dementia than to be arrested on suspicion of manslaughter/assisting a suicide.

elbowloh

I don't get why many of the back benchers are in such a huff about breaking manifesto / pre-election commitments. It's not like the Tories (or indeed other parties) have taken a sledge hammer to them.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Don't remember the backbenchers making a fuss when Lansley's disastrous bill was introduced.

rick_chasey

elbowloh said:

I don't get why many of the back benchers are in such a huff about breaking manifesto / pre-election commitments. It's not like the Tories (or indeed other parties) have taken a sledge hammer to them.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Don't remember the backbenchers making a fuss when Lansley's disastrous bill was introduced.

So my theory is

a) it's a regressive tax, so it will be less appealing to lower earners

b) those backbenchers are usually MPs with slim majorities, a lot of them in old labour seats with lower earners (thus more affected) so they need to be seen to be holding fast on their election commitments.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

I don't get why many of the back benchers are in such a huff about breaking manifesto / pre-election commitments. It's not like the Tories (or indeed other parties) have taken a sledge hammer to them.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Don't remember the backbenchers making a fuss when Lansley's disastrous bill was introduced.

So my theory is

a) it's a regressive tax, so it will be less appealing to lower earners

b) those backbenchers are usually MPs with slim majorities, a lot of them in old labour seats with lower earners (thus more affected) so they need to be seen to be holding fast on their election commitments.

Really not sure a tax on income counts as a regressive tax. The poll tax was a regressive tax

kingstongraham

Page 53.

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

elbowloh said:

I don't get why many of the back benchers are in such a huff about breaking manifesto / pre-election commitments. It's not like the Tories (or indeed other parties) have taken a sledge hammer to them.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Don't remember the backbenchers making a fuss when Lansley's disastrous bill was introduced.

So my theory is

a) it's a regressive tax, so it will be less appealing to lower earners

b) those backbenchers are usually MPs with slim majorities, a lot of them in old labour seats with lower earners (thus more affected) so they need to be seen to be holding fast on their election commitments.

Really not sure a tax on income counts as a regressive tax. The poll tax was a regressive tax

It's a tax on only employment income. If you make your living renting out property or off investments this won't touch you.

Pross

elbowloh said:

I don't get why many of the back benchers are in such a huff about breaking manifesto / pre-election commitments. It's not like the Tories (or indeed other parties) have taken a sledge hammer to them.

No top-down reorganisation of the NHS? Don't remember the backbenchers making a fuss when Lansley's disastrous bill was introduced.

It's because it was a non-tax raising pledge. They'd probably be happy to see the more money to social care pledge broken instead. It's less of a manifesto issue and more of a Tory red line issue I should think but just dressing it up to make them look a bit less uncaring.

kingstongraham

kingstongraham