And as repeatedly said by legal bloggers it doesn't matter what the offence or penalty is if it never gets to trial because of the underfunded legal system.

I am unable to understand why GPs in England not being able to order blood tests because of a shortage of sample bottles is not headline news.

It was a feature story on BBC news last week on both PM and Today.

Daily Mail headline, Daily Express or even the Mirror?

The entire cabinet is full of idiots. There's Gavin Williamson who thinks schools are safe because 'they have meters that measure CO2 levels'. There's Priti Patel, sacked by the previous PM for treason and conspiring with foreign powers whilst claiming to be on holiday, Suella Braverman who claimed it was all right for Dominic Cummings to break the law (her being the Attorney General!), both Raab and Johnson away for the fall of Afghanistan, the comedy of errors is just never-ending.

That will be thanks to Carrie.

Children's rights campaigner and footballer Marcus Rashford speaks out again:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...ester-58460197

So much for "levelling up" :rolleyes:

Ministers trying to frame Boris Johnson breaking his manifesto promise not to raise taxes or NI as him keeping his promise to fix social care.
He told us he had a ready-made plan to do that during the exact same election he made the tax and NI promise.

In all this discussion about NI and how it will impact younger folk more, why is no-one talking about removing the cap at £50k, i.e. when the rate drops from 12% to 2%, which benefits the very high paid at the expense of the lower paid?

I have yet to hear or read a mention of this in much discusssion lately.

Disclaimer: I'm married to a former pay roll bod, who does their ends at the apparent ignorance of how NI actually works.

I think, in real terms, food is cheaper now* than at almost any other point in history (Brexit / Covid may be about to change that) which makes this even more shocking.

*https://www.which.co.uk/news/2019/11...-be-surprised/

The key thing is that traditional Tory voters don't end up having to pay too much towards this.

Pensioners who don't work, no matter how wealthy they are, do not have to pay National Insurance and so don't have to contribute towards the costs of their care. If income tax had been increased then wealthy pensioners would have to contribute.

Wealthy people like me who draw a significant proportion of their income from sources other than employment (investments, capital gains, dividends and so on) will pay proportionately less towards the costs of social care.

Look, it's not as regressive a policy as raising VAT to pay for social care but, as usual, the burden will fall heaviest on those least able to afford to pay it - those "barely getting by". :(

Don't be silly, I mean earning £184 a week makes you one of the rich, just like Johnson and his mates!

#1851 - Yup, can't argue.

Mind, there are still Tories out there who are completely detached from reality: some berk on PM last night (who, so he said, was a former county councillor so he knew ALL about costing of social care) was talking about pensioners with incomes of over £70k...FFS! Who the buggery bollocks actually has that class of pension income? As a senior nurse I didn't even make it into the first of the higher tax bands. And I barely make it to the income tax income tax threshold on my pension now (god knows if or when I might receive some state pension, as there is plenty of time for the age to be upped yet again or some other bit of rules to be changed).

As Cameron put it "We're all middle class now". Sure Dave, all in it together too no doubt.

Looking at who benefits from this, and who pays (and who doesn't) I think Johnson is expecting a coup attempt within the party and aiming to have bribed a very specific electorate, the Tory Party members who'll vote in any Leadership challenge. Likely to be of the age to be likely to need care. Check. Likely to hold significant assets. Check. Likely to be living off a pension or receiving a significant proportion of their income from interest, dividends or rental properties. Check. Liable to be holding Bojo's PMship in their wrinkly hands fairly soon. If Gove or Sunak have their way... Check....

Quote of the day from an anonymous Tory MP, speaking to the FT
“We are asking people on low incomes to pay more tax so that privileged kids can inherit expensive houses.”

:mad:
Which is, of course, the natural order of things.:mad:

Like it was in the old days where working people paid taxes to enable Old Etonians to go to Oxford for free.

We all think it terribly wrong and outrageous that pensioners have to sell their homes in order to pay for their care, leaving their next of kin without an inheritance. We all think it is terribly wrong and outrageous that we now all have to pay extra in NI contributions as a social care levy. Catch-22.

If you are opposed to this you are a wretch with no empathy. An extra tax with a touchy-feely name to make you hate yourself should you protest. Very good.

Did anyone really expect a man who was incapable of managing a flat refurbishment without overspending by a ******* ludicrous sum to be capable of running the country?

Only those with less than €86,000 in savings will need to sell their homes.

Why?

I think Vixen was being sarcastic and/or channelling the spirit of a recently deceased Tory voter.

36 Billion raised by yesterday's rise over the next three years is still less than than the 37 billion spent on the failed test and trace system.

The tax increase is to fund the NHS until the election. Which is as long term as Boris Johnson thinks. He still doesn't have a social care plan.

The savings from leaving the EU are £18bn a year why can't the Government use that?

Yes he does: The well-off don't need to reduce their kids inheritance!

Let's face it, who believes anything Johnson comes out with. There was supposedly £350m per whatevs coming in the NHS as a result of savings from leaving the EU. Sorry to be cynical but will this additional money really support those living with dementia and protect their homes? I doubt it. It is as though Sunak and Johnson sat down and thought how can we sugar coat this need to recoup all the debt acquired because of Covid, furloughs and the eat out to help out hare-brained schemes? Well, of course, it has to be paid for somehow; hitting the working population with a further National Insurance charge and calling it a social care levy seems a very clever sleight of hand.

It seems to me, those facing later life memory loss will simply find ways to hide their assets before needing long-term care kicks in.

From the Beeb:

The amount individuals have to spend on their care will be capped at £86,000 - not including accommodation costs.

The National Care Association says it will not solve the sector's staffing crisis.

I tend to agree - those with plenty of assets find ways of passing them down to later generations with a minimum tax to pay whereas the middle-classes with moderate assets pay the full whack. Those assets will be squirrelled away in family trusts and/or gifted in tax-efficient ways well before they become "at risk" from the taxman or care-provider.

LOL This made me splutter coffee over my screen.

However, there does seem to be a myth in the UK that low taxes = Tory policy and high taxes = socialism.

This is not actually an economic reality. For example, in Finland, the nationalistic, right wing, anti-socialist Basic Finns Party (perussuomalaiset) strongly believe in the welfare state, which does go hand-in-hand with relatively high taxation.

The nordic model is often mistaken as a socialist one because of the high taxation and a good welfare state. However, IMV the high taxation works, because not only do people get a generous old age pension (based on a band according to their last salary [so ispo facto the median will cover the majority]) but long-term health care is capped at circa €700 per annum.

I may have got this wrong as my information is largely from a book by Anu Partanen comparing the Finnish healthcare system to that of the USA, but when my stepfather was in the terminal stages of cancer and in a hospice, his healthchare costs were no more than about €700 for the hospital room plus a small amount for all the prescription drugs, despite never having been a Finnish taxpayer (but a UK one and this was when the UK was in the EU). There was still circa €500 pcm to pay for a senior apartment which he had to move into but there was never any question of having to sell the family property. My mother who lived into her 90's died at home, stubbornly refusing to ever go into long term health care, so there was no cost there. Imagine if that had been in the UK, it probably would not have resulted in any significant cut to the inheritance because of the short term nature of the illnesses. However, despite having to pay a fee every time one consults a doctor or get a prescription - as well as the opticians and dentists - the cost is very reasonable, fast and efficient. When I broke a back tooth, it was immediately extracted and strong painkillers and antibiotics applied for a cost of circa €75, whereas when I had a broken lower tooth in England about four years ago (caused by chewing hard mints both times!) I had to beg my dentist for treatment, had to wait days for him to see me, then another couple of weeks to get a root canal and the tooth restored (costing >£700), had to buy my own non-prescription painkillers although he did provide a prescription for antibiotics.

So, it is between a rock and a hard palce. Do we like the Welfare State? Yes, we love it! Do we like high taxes? Noooooooo!!!

However, look at the extreme on one hand, the USA, where people regularly go bankrupt as they cannot afford the medical costs and you are heavily reliant on your employer to provide medical insurance (whilst only getting about two weeks holiday a year) and then the other extreme: Scandinavia or Finland, where 40% of your salary (and they are significantly better paid anyway!) goes on income tax, yet people have their babies for almost free, up to three to seven years maternity/paternity leave, which can be shared, about six weeks holiday a year, short working days, long-term care capped at a low cost, decent pension on retirement, one can clearly see which is the better way. The inheritance is fairly taxed so that you pay according to tax band. Otherwise, your inheritance is intact and the kids have an automatic right to inherit at least 50%, unlike the brutal system in the UK and the USA where a mean parent can simply leave everything to the cat's home as one last laugh from the grave.

The UK at the moment might consider itself 'low tax' and a levy of 1.25% 'to be shared by all' sounds terribly fair and equitable but is actually awful as it protects the rich whilst the poor never had £86,000 for long-term health care anyway and heaven help them if they go over the £20,000 de minimis in savings! AIUI talking to friends £24K was the minimum amount anyway before social services started eyeing up the value of your house.

Multiple horse race
 

And as we enter the back straight in this race the "Most incompetent Minister Stakes" once again Gavin Williamson gets his nose out in front.

They all loo the same

Of course, Williamson is in no way, manner or form any kind of anything remotely like a racist...

FFS, Rashford and Itoje don't especially resemble each other and certainly don't sound like each other. Or did he not recognise Itoje without a scrum cap? Or was Maro wearing a red top, so "Not a racist" assumed it was a Manchester United top?

Pro tip Gavin: don't watch some bits of the England/India cricket, as you'll get into all manner of difficulties with Moeen Ali and Haseeb Hameed, let alone Kohli and Rahane.

What an embarrassment the cabinet is. Don't they even read the papers? In at least two workplaces I was expected to at least peruse the TIMES and the FINANCIAL TIMES delivered daily. You would think the government would keep abreast of what is happening in the country they are supposed to be running.

Gavin Williamson: what a prize idiot.

The current government is dedicated to generating headlines, not reading them ;)

I don't know, it's a pretty packed field in the current cabinet. Finishing in the top 5 in the idiot stakes would be a pretty impressive result.

John Grace in the GRAUNIAD:

[Re Matt Hancock]

Border Force officials are in the final stages of training to use a new tactic to turn back boats carrying migrants across the Channel to the UK.
The move could only be used in limited circumstances - with Home Secretary Priti Patel asked to personally approve it for individual cases.

It is understood that the final training may take place within days, subject to the weather - meaning the tactic would then be ready to be used whenever is it practical and safe to do so.

But France has warned against the move. It says it flouts international maritime law, which says people at risk of losing their lives at sea must be rescued.
The government's lawyers say turning boats back would be legal in limited and specific circumstances - although they have not confirmed what these will be.

Because the legal and safety risks are so high, it is also understood that Border Force chiefs have asked Ms Patel to personally support commanders in decisions to use the tactic, meaning she would have to be available to take a call from a Border Force vessel if and when they believe the tactic can be used safely.

The tactic has never been used before in the English Channel, but it has been in the Mediterranean, said the Immigration Services Union (ISU) which represents borders, immigration and customs staff.

Lucy Moreton from the ISU said she would be "very surprised" if it ends up being used at all - calling it "dead in the water".
"There are understandably a lot of constraints around it, and you cannot do this with a vessel which is in any way vulnerable.
"But more importantly, you also need the consent of the French to do it. Because as you turn the vessel back towards France, when it crosses the median line it has to be intercepted and rescued by the French, and it appears the French will simply not engage in this."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58495948

Ah well. There is some good news for Diana 'Dido' Harding, Matthew Hancock, Helen Whateley, Therese Coffey, Allegra Stratton and co. In order to implement the new 'social care levy' (= a different way to say 'tax'), 42 new CEO/Administrators will be needed to be in charge of applying it. The level of uselessness will no doubt be inversely proportional to salary. I am sure the aforesaid will know of someone perfect for the role.

Er, 'dead in the water' is a rather unfortunate phrase.

Film of drowned refugees at 11

If the British use this the French will stop trying to intercept any boats whatsoever and only intervene if they are capsizing. No country has an obligation to prevent people from trying to travel to another country. By contrast it's a violation of international law to actively transport individuals to another country without consent.

Asking permission from the HS is all very well, but she's not the one that will be responsible for any deaths. It will the the captain of the ship that carries the can if he doesn't help.

How will they be able to safely return a boat back to French waters? will they board it and put a tow line on?
Will they try to nudge it round with the hull of the ship?
How will they ensure the boat doesn't just turn round and try again?
Will they venture in to French waters to accomplish the mission?
What happens when the French confront a border force cutter trying to illegally tow a boat in to French waters?