egg

He said "But always we will show how we are going to pay for it, what we are reprioritising. That will be a theme that we will always come back to." I don't take that as a suggestion that policies and funding will be announced simultaneously - expecting that is unrealistic.

Got a link?

Indeed. He either wants social care sorting or he doesn't. If he does, he should applaud Burnham for the commitment, and welcome the fact that he wants to take time to work out the details including the funding. I'm slightly baffled why anyone sees any of that as a bad thing.

It's quite amusing that people are clutching at straws, but going on about pearl clutching.

He hasn't put the cart before the horse. He's committed to a policy, in principle. He's invited cross party discussion on that principle. There'll then be a detailed proposal re that policy. It'll then be costed, then funded on way or the other. Alongside that there'll be a review of all manner of areas of spending - welfare, state pensions included, defence, etc. We also need to see where gilt yields go and assess our borrowing costs. Committing to a principle was the right thing to do. Looking at everything else is also the right thing to do. Then shuffling the pennies will then happen, and be the right thing to do. Social care needs fixing.

Probably best to direct your question to someone who you think has criticised you. I'll stick to the actual subject.

I didn't get personal. I criticized the article, gullible people, and lazy posting. If you put yourself in the gullible camp, then yep, you got flak, but I didn't put you there.

I didn't get personal. Show me where. As farmer said, people are entitled to assume that something you link to may represent your view unless you say what your view is. That shouldn't be a controversial or surprising opinion.

Yep, and as I suspect we see sometimes, an opportunity to row backwards when flak is received. It makes discussion pointless.

Would you be happier if he just said he'd slap taxes up? Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather sit back and see what he does elsewhere to find the money. Removing the triple lock should cover it.

That's a different issue. You did what he did, and got criticised for - lazily posting a link without comment/question/opinion. If you don't want it being suggested that a shit article doesn't represent your opinion, don't lazily link to it without any comment etc.

SoG used to get mullered for posting links to articles without comment, question, or opinion...it's usually best to spark debate with comment, question or opinion imo, otherwise, as has happened here, people reasonably assume that what you're linking to is your opinion. Your posting approach invited the response you received.

Nope, I think the bloke made that up. However, social care is needed and must be funded, so I think a tax / levy is inevitable. We'll see a nibbling of the welfare budget, triple lock will go, but there's no other significant room for manoeuvre unless vat goes up or something daft like that. I'd like to see all state benefits means tested as a starter. I know people earning good money getting DLA for their kids and just chuck it in a junior ISA, and adults who earn a fortune but get PIP and lob the cash in a SIPP. We need to sift the greedy from the genuinely needy.

I'm not sure where this flirting is taking the discussion.

That's an odd interpretation. What we have is people keen to enter the EU, and Spain clinging onto their colonial past thus giving people a potential entry point.