The Left's way forward

No, you mentioned DNA first, not me. And yes, you have misread what little I've posted.

Let me make my position quite clear and then I'll leave this thread.

I fully support the welfare state giving support to those who need help. What gets my goat are those who sponge off the state, having no intention of ever seeking work.

I'm NOT talking about those who lose their jobs due to redundancy, illness or other misfortune. I am NOT talking about those who have tried to find work and can't. NOR am I talking about those with disabilities or learning difficulties or other such reasons for finding themselves unable to work or homeless

There are people who see living off welfare as a lifestyle choice. And they are robbing those who NEED welfare. In a previous job I met these, many of them. That is my gripe. But of course you won't accept that.

So get off your high horse and stop imagining you have a monopoly on sympathy and understanding. And don't bother pouring vitriol on my post as I have no intention of hanging around in this pointless thread to read it.

What is all this about DNA?

Are you really saying, Gracesgran, that those 'lucky enough' to be born with a certain DNA are able to overcome any situation they're faced with and others born with a different DNA - presumably 'unlucky' - are somehow unable to?

I don't need to know about the family you were born into Anya; it is obvious from what you have said that you were lucky enough to be born with the DNA to overcome any situation you have been faced with - isn't that what you have told us.

However it is a fact that you do not know whether or not I have led a sheltered life and it is a fact that you are currently showing no empathy for those who are not in the same position as you - or have I misread what you are saying?

But Ana we are well-to-do, middle class pensioners, born with all the advantage of good genes, a stable family background and every other opportunity life has to offer.

If only .....

Oh I know, Anya. Can't resist a nit-picking challenge though...

But Ana there's no point trying.

Smoked, injected or sniffed up the nose.

It has happened GG are you saying it doesn't? Some people have led a sheltered life

You know nothing about the family I was born into either.

Various drugs can be smoked, absent, including cannabis and heroin. Anya didn't specify tobacco.

Anya I have no doubt that there are those with good jobs whose alcoholism, gambling, use of illegal drugs or sheer profligacy has resulted in the loss of their home. Indeed, I knew someone who "drank" his house. But has anyone really ever spent so much on tobacco that they have been rendered homeless?

Eloethan, I have never understood why those who are employed want those who own the means of employment to prosper to such extremes while holding down the wages of others who are also employed.

I think your description of the way in which it is an illusion that money is saved sums up so much of the smoke and mirrors the DC and GO are using.

It may have happened Anya but you do seem to be inferring anything that leaves people worse off than you are is all about them not "doing the right thing" which you obviously believe you did.

So much of it is luck. We are all so lucky to have been born into a country where children no longer die in their droves before they are five. We have been lucky to be born into the families we were and to have the DNA which allowed you to fit into and thrive in the society you were born into. Sadly so many people, who think they did it all themselves and that others have only themselves to blame if life was not as good to them, seem to have missed out on empathy.

Eloethan

Are you dismissing the other parties because you believe they have /have had no connections to private health care companies whilst serving in the present government or past governments ?

Eloethan just because you don't know anyone in a good job you has drunk, smoked, gambled, borrowing or otherwise lost their house through these and other kinds of irresponsible spending, doesn't mean it is an isolated example. It happens more than you realise.

When Osborne talks about shrinking the state/the public sector, it's as if all that money which goes towards providing these essential services is at a stroke saved. But just because some public sector workers are not directly employed by the state, their services are needed and cannot be dispensed with. These home carers, nurses, phlebotomists, cleaners, etc. etc. who are no longer directly employed by the state still have to be paid for out of taxes - but via private companies or not-for-profit organisations or, as is increasingly being suggested may happen in future, by introducing direct payment from those people needing the service.

Workers have been re-employed by private businesses at much lower rates of pay and are often treated very badly. In order to slice off a good profit, companies use every opportunity to cut costs - often resulting in low morale and poor, and sometimes unsafe, service provision. Unless people are going to be charged for many more types of service, I don't see how shifting service provision to private companies can, in the long run, reduce the call on the exchequer - but it will make lots of money for many of the companies that donate to the Conservative Party.

Thank you anno - I've just listened and it was very interesting. I remember being annoyed that Clare Short hadn't resigned at the outset. She sounded quite genuine in her reason for not doing so, although I still think it was a mistake.

I agree with her points re New Labour relying too much on spin and focus groups and not enough on core principles and reasoned debate. Her analysis of the way parliament operates now was, I thought, rather depressing.

Sorry I have just, 20 pages of posts, got to this thread..so I may well repeat comments or questions but tbh life's too short to check out I am not being repetitive.

I support re-nationalisation. gillybob it can be a different pattern than before but better the profit from any utility /service comes back to the government/council than to a 'fat cat' business. I am not sure why you dislike public sector workers so much! Having been one all my life I have tried hard to give back to society what I got via my training (free to me), worked hard and long hours , chose to have a slightly lower income than equivalent private sector as I was paying into a pension.
Any private company is in it for profit Serco/Babcock/ Veolia/SITA etc who now replace public sector have not reduced your council tax and the workers have far less security. Do you think that is right??

My Mum paid the fees for her care until she died. I know because I had power of attorney for her and did all her finances, during the 6 years she was in a care home having had a stroke.
She was well looked after there, but would have preferred to be cared for at home. That would have been more expensive than the £250 pw at the time in the Home.(1997 to 2003.)
The fees have increased to a ridiculous amount since then, and many homes have gone out of business because of all the new regs.
Even so, I believe that if a person has the funds they should pay for their own care.

You might be interested in a programme I heard on Radio 4 this morning in which Clare Short was intensively interviewed by Peter Hennessey about her life and politics. Very interesting in the light of what's going on in the Labour Party at the moment.

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0638xbd

Anya Of course you can always find isolated examples of people who have been profligate. But is that really what most people are like? I certainly don't know anyone who has a good job who has chosen to live in rented accommodation - even people on modest earnings are doing their best to save for a deposit because they know that paying rent is throwing money away.

Given that most houses have risen steeply in price, those that have bought a house have a number of options open to them - to sell it and move to a cheaper area/downsize, to rent it and test out living in a different area/country, etc. etc. If a sale realises a substantial profit and if the worst comes to worst and residential care is needed, they can choose to spend more money on a better quality home if they so wish. Renters do not have such options and these days are at the mercy of landlords who are putting up rents each year or threatening eviction to tenants who ask for basic repairs to be carried out. I would question a person's state of mind if he/she chose to rent when it is perfectly within their means to buy.

Whilst it's admirable that some of you on here feel satisfied that your home can be used in almost its entirety to finance residential care, many people were not willing for this to happen and took steps to avoid it. I think that loophole may have been closed down now but I certainly know somebody who was very comfortably off who got her mother to use this device and whose "inheritance" was subsequently not affected by the deduction of care costs. Most solicitors will tell you that these arrangements were very common amongst people who were "in the know" about such things.

My own feeling is that the inheritance tax threshold should not have been increased to £1,000,000 per couple, since the increasing number of estates in the south east that would have attracted this tax would have yielded a considerable amount of money which could have gone to the exchequer. In fact, I think the inheritance threshold should have been lowered so that more estates - including our own - would have been liable to pay it. I do not think it's fair, though, that only people who have the misfortune to require residential care should bear the whole burden of cost. People who go into residential care because they have significant dementia are not making a "lifestyle choice" - it is necessary in order to keep them physically safe. Imagine if a similar system were used for people with chronic physical or mental illnesses or disabilities who at some stage required lengthy and expensive hospital admissions - that the cost of their care be deducted from their estates on their death. Would that be deemed acceptable? Probably not, because it would affect too many families and would be a vote loser.

POGS, and I agree you are in the hard working , sensible spending section - so are many who cannot pay for care

The media are trying to influence the outcome of the leadership election now.
Did anyone see the headline in the Sunday times?
"Hard left plot to infiltrate Labour race."
Their writers must have been reading Gransnet
Calling on Harriet Harman to suspend the campaign, which shows they think she is already one of theirs.

Anniebach

You are correct I did set myself into the hard working, sensible spending section as against the p--s it up the wall group.

I am sure you are hard working and sensible with your spending too.

I have not said that just because someone does not own their home or have savings they have 'p----d it up the wall'. That would be ridiculous .

I'm closely related to one of those,

But there are those who were in good jobs, full time, who could have owned their own house but have nothing to show for it, because they've p....d it all away. I'm sure you'll accept that Annieb?

POGS,i respect the fact that you accept you are in a position to and are willing to psy for care and not expect the state to pay. You did set yourself in the hard working sensible spending section as apposed to the p against the wall group, there are some not in either and not through choice