The Next General Election

I was ruminating on yesterday’s by-election results and trying to work out what it might mean for a general election. Unless some miracle happens the next GE will be fought on a first past the post basis.

Just looking at the Labour vote over the last three elections we have:

2017 - 40% of the vote 262 seats

2019 - 32.1% of the vote 202 seats

2024 - 33.7% of the vote 411 seats

In 2024 it wasn’t so much that Labour did brilliantly rather it was that Reform annihilated the Conservative vote. Letting Labour in with a large majority in parliament.

Yesterday the Greens took a large chunk of the Labour vote. Will they do so at the next GE? In which case if the centre-left vote is split the Tories might get back in - or Reform!!! Is Zak a busted flush following his defeat?

As things currently stand in my opinion the result will depend on how Labour does viz The Greens and the Conservatives viz Reform.

Two maxims to remember; Governments lose elections rather than opposition win them and secondly a week in politics is a long time.

Cousin Gina

 As I previously posted last Saturday, 26 September, my cousin Gina died. Today 4th October is my birthday and I received a birthday card from her postmarked the day she died. She never forgot a birthday!

Gina Reynolds - RIP

It is my sad duty to tell you that my cousin Gina Reynolds suddenly died last Saturday 26th September at around 10:00am She had gone to the local shop to collect her paper on her mobility scooter with a friend. She was not feeling well, a pain in the chest which she thought was indigestion and whilst waiting in the shop said she would go home. She saw her next door neighbour who called an ambulance. They took her to the local hospital and rushed her in; she died shortly after.

The funeral will be at Great Yarmouth Crematorium on Thursday 22nd October at 2pm. Gina did not want any flowers. Donations to the RSPCA in her name.

Marion 'Gina' Helen Reynolds - Death | Great Yarmouth Mercury 

Is Charles Spencer working for the KGB?

Charles Spencer's book appears to be riddled with errors, at least in reference to Piers Morgan. If he didn't bother to check easily verifiable facts why should we believe the rest of the book which appears to be unverifiable memory?

It would seem to me that he is doing his best to destabilise the monarchy so I wonder if he is doing this at the behest of a foreign power. I have no means of proving this theory which puts it on a par with most of his book.

What did Charles say on the death of his ex-wife?

 Exactly what did the then Prince Charles say to Charles Spencer about the death of his ex-wife? Only two people know the truth unless the conversation was taped. Rather ironically both are 'Charles'; you can almost see one of those logic puzzles - one tribe always tells the truth the other always tells lies, what is the one question that I can ask that will determine I am talking to a truth teller or a liar? 

I doubt if the riddle of the Charles is as easy - who knows? 

Party Political Donations

Having posted on the 31st August regarding Party Political Donations I read that two very wealthy people have each donated £36m to Reform. To even things up I was going to donate £36m to each of Labour, Conservatives Lib-Dems and the Greens (apologies to Count Bin-Man). However on opening my piggy-bank all a found were a couple of very old French Francs and a couple of sweet wrappers - so sorry guys.

On a more serious note, I find this trend deeply disturbing; but to me what is as sinister are proposals to not only ban mega donations ( a good thing) but to make this ban retrospective and date it back to March of this year (a bad thing). I do wonder if such action would be proposed if the donations had been made to the Labour or Conservative Parties?

Whilst I do not support the Reform Party it should be treated fairly and these proposals or at least reported proposals seem unfair to me if they are applied retrospectively- who knows what is true anymore?

It does appear, at least according to AI, that retrospective legislation is allowable in the UK - strongly discouraged with respect to criminal law but has been used with regard to tax law to close loopholes.

Parliament can make legislation retrospective in the UK because the UK has parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament has the legal right to pass laws that apply to past actions, provided the wording of the statute makes that intention completely clear.

Courts assume Parliament does not intend to change past legal rules unless it says so directly.

Common Areas of UseTax Law: The government sometimes passes backdated tax rules to stop aggressive tax avoidance schemes that exploit loopholes.Validating Past Acts:

Parliament can pass laws to officially confirm that past administrative actions or fees were legal, fixing technical errors in older systems.

9/11

 Extract from my Family Christmas Letter in 2001

No mention of 2001 would be complete without talking about the murder and mayhem of 9/11. I was usually up early as the princess had to be out of the house by 7;00am to get to school for Hélèna's 7:30am start. I was up somewhat earlier than usual at about 5:40 and unusually for me I put the TV on as I was making a coffee. Whatever it was I was watching, one of the News Channels, there was a sudden interruption just after 5:45. It said that there were reports of a plane crashing into one of the Twin Towers. Nobody seemed to quite know what had happened, the feeling was that it was a tourist sightseeing plane that had clipped a wing.

I must confess that my initial thoughts were that it was sad; but that I hoped it would all be sorted in time for our planned trip to New York the following summer. I was also starting to get some messages over our internal messaging system, no social media back then, from UK colleagues. The consensus seemed to be that the “yanks’ were all getting rather hysterical about things. Then the second plane struck at 9:03am (6:03 in San Jose) and it all went very sombre. It was somewhat more important than our planned trip to New York. Whilst we were all trying to digest what was happening at 9:37 (6:37 for us) the plane struck the Pentagon.

Then we were getting calls from parents of Hélèna’s friends – would school be open today? I think I was called as I was the “terrorist expert”, London and the UK having been struck by the IRA. I said that it was several thousand miles away and so we should continue as normal or as near normal as we could. There was school that day although, if I recall correctly, there were no sports after school.

I went into the office and they were streaming TV into various places and they day was sent talking and speculating about what was happening. It was a strange and scary time. Like many employers IBM put an initial ban on business trips without senior management approval. Various planned events such as kick-off meetings were cancelled although later reinstated.

My thoughts and prayers for all those killed and affected by the atrocity

MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS

Humanity, created by God in all its grandeur, is today facing a pivotal choice: either to construct a new Tower of Babel or to build the city in which God and humanity dwell together. Each generation inherits the task of shaping its own era, of guiding history to become a place where the dignity of every person is safeguarded, justice is promoted and fraternity is made possible. Yet every era also runs the risk of creating an inhumane and more unjust world. Whenever humanity is in danger of marring its true identity, we Christians lift our eyes to the Incarnate God, knowing that it is “only in the mystery of the Word made flesh that the mystery of humanity truly becomes clear.” In Jesus Christ, this humanity in its grandeur becomes the Way, the Truth and the Life, opening the path for each of us to grow toward fullness.

The above is the opening paragraph of Pope Leo's first Papal Encyclical, Magifica Humanitas which I am currently studying. In Magnifica Humanitas, Pope Leo compares the rapid rise of AI to the biblical story of the Tower of Babel. Humanity faces a choice: build an arrogant, fractured system of technological control, or foster a "civilization of love" grounded in justice, solidarity, and the common good.

To avert these dangers, the encyclical calls for robust public oversight, transparent accountability, and moral responsibility. Technology must be placed firmly at the service of the human person rather than dictating the future of society.

As we know Artificial intelligence is one of the most important technological developments of the modern world. It can help people solve problems, complete tasks, discover new information, and communicate more easily. However, despite its many benefits, AI also creates serious risks. If it is developed or used irresponsibly, it could have negative effects on individuals, society, and the future of work.

One major danger of AI is job displacement. AI systems can perform many tasks that were previously completed by humans, such as writing, data analysis, customer service, and manufacturing. As companies look for ways to reduce costs and increase efficiency, some workers may lose their jobs or find that their skills are no longer in demand. Although AI may create new careers, not everyone will have the time, money, or opportunity to retrain. This could increase unemployment and economic inequality.

Another concern is misinformation. AI can generate convincing text, images, audio, and videos that appear to be real. This makes it easier for people to create fake news, impersonate others, or spread false information online. Deepfake technology, for example, can make it seem as though a person has said or done something that never happened. If people cannot easily distinguish between real and artificial content, trust in the media, governments, and even other people could decline.

Privacy is another important issue. Many AI systems depend on huge amounts of data, including information about people's behaviour, interests, and online activities. If this information is collected or used without proper safeguards, individuals may lose control over their personal data. AI-powered surveillance could also allow governments or organisations to monitor people on a scale that would have been difficult in the past.

AI can also make unfair decisions. Artificial intelligence learns from data, and that data can contain human biases. As a result, an AI system used for hiring, lending, policing, or other important decisions might treat certain groups unfairly. Even when developers do not intend to create discrimination, biased data or poorly designed systems can produce harmful outcomes.

Finally, there are concerns about increasingly powerful AI systems being difficult to control. If an AI system is given poorly designed goals or too much authority, it could make decisions that cause unexpected harm. This is why researchers, governments, and technology companies need to focus on safety, transparency, and human oversight.

In conclusion, AI has enormous potential to improve our lives, but it also presents significant dangers. Job losses, misinformation, privacy violations, discrimination, and problems with controlling advanced systems are all issues that need serious attention. AI itself is not necessarily good or bad; its impact depends largely on how humans develop and use it. By creating strong rules, improving education, protecting privacy, and keeping humans responsible for important decisions, society can gain the benefits of AI while reducing its risks.

If as some leading researchers say there is a 10% chance that AI will destroy humanity it means that there is a 90% chance that it won't. Are we happy with these odds?

HAPPY SEPTEMBER 1st

Countdown Details to Christmas

Date: Friday, December 25, 2026

Weeks: 16 weeks and 3 days

Sleeps: 115 sleeps

Political Party Donations - what to do? How do we stop donors buying policies?

 Stopping donors to political parties from buying political influence will require a mix of financial caps, public funding, and strict transparency rules. 

Cap and Ban Large Donations

Limit individual amounts: Set strict caps on how much a single person, company, or organization can donate to a political party. Reformers proposals often suggest limits ranging from £10,000 to £100,000, though higher limits or resistance from major interest groups have stalled these changes in the past and threaten to do so today.
Block foreign and shell-company money: Require corporate donors to prove a genuine domestic economic connection—such as being active UK taxpayers or majority-owned by local citizens—to stop foreign entities from funneling cash through shell companies.

Implement Public Financing

Match small donations: Use public funds to match small individual donations and modest membership fees. This would force politicians to seek broad grassroots support rather than relying on a handful of mega-donors as they currently do.
Provide per-vote allocations: Distribute state funding to parties based on the share of votes they received in past elections, ensuring smaller parties still have a voice while maintaining fair safeguards.
Lower Spending Limits
Reduce campaign caps: Lower the legal limits on how much political parties can spend during national campaigns and leadership contests. This would reduce the constant pressure on politicians to chase huge sums of private cash. How to stop wealthy donors setting up so called political think tanks who then publish reports and advertise without financial limits is an issue (the Elephant in the Room?).
Increase Transparency and Enforcement
Real-time reporting: Publish all political donations and loans online in real time. 
Lower reporting thresholds: Reduce the minimum financial threshold before a donation must be formally declared to regulators like the Electoral Commission. 
Empower watchdogs: Grant regulatory bodies stronger legal powers and resources to audit funding sources and penalize rule-breakers immediately

Assisted Suicide Bill and Andy Burnham

 I am disappointed that Andy Burnham does not have the courage of his convictions. He has historically expressed concerns regarding the Assisted Suicide Bill, arguing that the UK must first "fix" its social and palliative care funding before considering legalising assisted dying. He now states that he wants to remain neutral as Prime Minister to allow MPs a genuinely free vote.

We all know what he thinks so why not vote against the bill? In my opinion this is spineless.

What is the biggest broken promise made by any UK government

 Purely for devilment I asked the AI bot on Google the following question: "What is the biggest broken promise made by any UK government".

I received the following response:

Deciding which broken promise is the "biggest" depends on personal political views, economic impact, and how many people it affected. Several major broken pledges by different UK governments stand out in modern history for their scale and public backlash.

Major Broken Promises in Recent UK History

Student Fees (Liberal Democrats / Coalition Government, 2010): Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats signed a pledge to vote against any increase in university tuition fees. After entering government in 2010 with the Conservatives, they trebled the cap to £9,000 a year.

National Insurance (Conservative Government, 2021): Boris Johnson’s government promised in the 2019 manifesto not to raise National Insurance, income tax, or VAT. In 2021, they introduced a new Health and Social Care Levy via a National Insurance rise.

Iraq War Weapons of Mass Destruction (Labour Government, 2003): Tony Blair’s government asserted with "certainty" that Saddam Hussein possessed active weapons of mass destruction. This claim justified joining the US-led invasion of Iraq, but no such weapons were ever found.

AV Referendum and Electoral Reform (Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition, 2010): The Liberal Democrats wanted a change to the voting system. The coalition promised a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which was soundly defeated by the public in 2011, leaving the first-past-the-post system in place.

HS2 Northern Leg (Conservative Government, 2023): Successive Conservative prime ministers promised to build the full High Speed 2 rail line connecting London to Manchester and Leeds. In late 2023, the government cancelled the northern leg of the project.

Personally I would add - Boris Johnson; forty new hospitals by the end of 2030 and Keir Starmers; 1.5 million new homes by the next General Election. I know that it is not yet 2030 or the next General Election but the chances of these pledges being met are as good as me being elected the next pope ( I pray that Pope Leo outlives me)

Why is Britain so Badly Governed? (In general not party specific)

While there is no single official running tally tracking politicians who specifically worked in hands-on industry or manual trades, detailed occupational analyses of the 650 MPs in the House of Commons show that fewer than 10% come from a manual, trade, or core industrial background, with only a tiny fraction having worked in heavy manufacturing, construction, or frontline production. 

The Rise of the Career Politician

Data compiled across successive general elections by the House of Commons Library and academic projects highlights a profound shift in where British politicians originate:

The "Never Worked Outside Politics" Group: Roughly 90 MPs (around 14% of Parliament) entered politics straight through the pipeline of party researcher, political advisor, special adviser (SpAd), or local councillor without holding a significant outside job. 
The Decline of Manual and Industrial Labour: In the post-war era (such as the 1945 Parliament), roughly one-third of Labour MPs were manual workers or ex-miners. By 2010, that proportion dropped below 10%, and estimates for recent parliaments suggest fewer than 10 to 15 MPs across the entire House of Commons previously held working-class manual or industrial trade roles. So how do politicians know what it is like on the shop-floor?
Dominant Professional Backgrounds: Over half of all MPs across major parties emerge from professional fields such as law, corporate business/finance, journalism, public relations, or charity management. So how do they know the day to day realities of running a company, be it large industrial conglomerate or a small family business?
Industry vs. Corporate Backgrounds
Distinctions are often drawn between corporate/financial management and actual "shop floor" or industrial trade experience:
While a moderate number of Conservative MPs have backgrounds in corporate management, consultancy, or small business ownership, very few possess long-term careers in traditional blue-collar industry, engineering production, or technical trades. 
Conversely, MPs with Labour or trade-linked backgrounds frequently spent their pre-parliamentary years as union officials, charity executives, or public sector workers rather than industrial labourers. 
As noted by consensus on various Reddit UK Politics Discussions, the modern recruitment pipeline for mainstream political parties heavily favours higher education, public policy, and media communications over practical experience in heavy industry or manual trades. 
In the immediate post-war era most politicians had been involved in doing things during the war. The great feat of the Normandy Landings was not done by a politician wishing it - the reality was hundreds/thousands of people doing detailed planning and organising things in minute detail. What, if anything, is done with the same care and attention to detail today.
My preferred solution of shooting the lot of them and starting again is not really practical or befitting a Permanent Deacon in the Catholic Church. But unless we have a radical reform of the way we select our politicians and the way political parties operate we will continue on our downward spiral whoever is in power.

Our First Sea Cruise - To The Norwegian Fjords - May 29 - June 6 2026

 To read about our Saga Sea Cruise to the Norwegian Fjords click here

Funding Care for the Elderly Part 2

There are several different scenarios /categories of people that we need to consider.

1.     The extremely wealthy, those that if the need arises could spend several hundred thousand a year on care and not notice it.

2.     Those that have absolutely no savings or any means paying for care, either at home or in a Care Home. If the need arises the council pay, maybe not very willingly and after lots of delay, and the quality of care that they get might not be the best. It doesn’t cost them anything and currently this cost is about 20% of local council spending (according to Google!!)

3.     That leaves what I suspect is the vast majority that have some savings and perhaps some capital tied up in a property. 

a.     If they do not need care either at home or in a Care Home what they leave will go to their heirs (less IHT). 

b.     If they do need care in some form they will have to fund it and dependent on how long they live they might have nothing left for their heirs or a greatly diminished sum.

It seems to me that those in the middle have a choice/dilemma; do they/we pay a so called “death tax”, extra income tax or similar and know that what we have and leave (after IHT) will go to our heirs irrespective if we need care or not (assuming that the funds generated are hypothecated). Or if we do not reform Care for the Elderly and how we fund it, it will remain the current lottery dependent on whether you need care or not.

Personally, I favour reform.

Hamilton House School - Trying to trace John Houghton (Also at Aske's Hatcham)

The photo is of a class at Hamilton House School, Newstead Road, Lee, London SE12, taken in about 1954. Mrs Hanks was the teacher. I am seated far left; David Shaw is behind me. John Holland standing left hand end of the bench - sadly John died in an air rash (Fleet Air Arm training flight) in May 1970. Are any others in the photo still around? In particular I would like to catch up with John Houghton, think he is stood middle row next to Mrs Hanks. John Houghton, John Holland and I all went to Aske's at New Cross - we drifted apart during our school years often wondered what happened to him

Burst Water Mains

 Here in Bromley we seem to be suffering from an increased number of burst water mains, causing traffic chaos and a further strain on our water supply.

The prolonged dry spell in the South East of England is directly responsible for the surge in water leaks. The dry ground is causing soil movement and increased stress on pipes.

The South East of England has a high concentration of heavy clay soils. Clay acts like a sponge, expanding significantly when wet and shrinking heavily during prolonged dry weather. As moisture evaporates from the ground, the soil contracts, cracks, and loses volume. This process is known as soil desiccation.

The underground water mains are embedded directly within this shifting soil matrix. There is differential movement as the soil does not dry or shrink evenly. One section of earth may drop or pull away faster than the section next to it, subjecting buried pipes to bending, pulling, and shearing forces.

A large portion of the UK's water grid consists of older, rigid cast iron or brittle clay pipes. These materials cannot flex. When the surrounding earth moves or hardens like concrete, the stress causes these older joints to pull apart and the mains to fracture

Funding Care for the Elderly

How we should fund care for the elderly is the question that has dogged all recent UK governments. Every government in recent times, and we have had a lot of them, has promised that it will sort this problem out once and for all. They have all looked at it and then done the big fudge. I had hopes that Keir Starmer would tackle this, but what did he do? Have yet another commission look at the issue!

I recall some fifty plus years ago Agnes, a friend of my in-laws, who was the matron of a council run nursing home said do not save for your old age. That person has money and is funding their own care, that person has none and it is free. Why bother saving?

Andy Burnham has said that this will be one of his main priorities; yet he has not been in power for more than a couple of days and I see that the Daily Mail is already screaming “Death Tax” as in the past he proposed a solution whereby the cost was taken out of one’s estate after death. Despite what the press might think, if one is going to go into a care home it has to be funded somehow. The question is what system is the most equitable?

Care home funding in the UK depends on your local council, your health needs, and where you live. Average costs range from £925 to over £2,800 per week. Your local council will arrange a free Care Needs Assessment and a Financial Means Test to decide if you pay your own way or receive state support.  

The main ways to fund care homes in the UK depend entirely on your personal situation:

 

1. Local Authority Funding (State-Funded Care)

If your savings and assets fall below certain thresholds, your local council can help pay for your care home. 

• England & Northern Ireland: If your capital is below £14,250, you qualify for maximum funding. If you have between £14,250 and £23,250, you pay a contribution.
• Wales: There is a single capital threshold of £50,000.
• Scotland: The upper savings threshold is £35,000, and the lower is £21,500.  

The Process: The council looks at your income (including pensions) and capital (like savings and the value of your property) to work out how much you must contribute

 

2. Self-Funding (Paying Privately)

If your assets are above the local threshold, you are considered a "self-funder" and must pay for all your care home fees.  

• England & Northern Ireland: Assets above £23,250.
• Wales: Assets above £50,000.
• Scotland: Assets above £27,250. 

Paying for your own care: Self-funders usually pay for their care by renting or selling their home, using pensions and savings, or purchasing a care fee annuity (an insurance product). If your savings drop below the thresholds, you can ask your local council to step in and help with funding. 

 

3. NHS Funding

If you have severe, complex health needs, your care might be fully or partially paid for by the NHS, regardless of your finances.  

• NHS Continuing Healthcare (CHC): This is for individuals with a "primary health need". The NHS fully pays for your care and accommodation.  
• NHS-Funded Nursing Care (FNC): If you don't qualify for CHC but still need to live in a care home with registered nursing, the NHS will make a flat-rate contribution toward the nursing costs. In England, the standard rate is £267.68 per week.  

4. Extra Benefits and Options

If you are funding your own care, you might still be able to claim benefits like Attendance Allowance (up to £114.60 per week) if you are over 65 and need help with personal care.  

If you own your home but don't want to sell it immediately, you can look into a Deferred Payment Agreement. This is a loan from your local council to help pay for care, using your home as security. The loan is typically repaid when you sell the property or from your estate.

 

So basically, if you have saved during your working life you pay; no money the state pays, as Agnes said all those years ago why save? There has to be a better more equitable funding model. We need to protect and support those who have not been able to save due to sickness, disability etc; but what about those who have chosen not to save and those who have been feckless?

 

Effects of Current Funding Model in the UK

 

The UK’s current adult social care model described above of splitting s healthcare (free under the NHS) and social care (means-tested), causing severe asset depletion, postcode lotteries in local council funding, unmet needs, and over-reliance on unpaid family carers. 

The specific localized and systemic effects include:

• Catastrophic Asset Depletion: Social care in England is subject to a strict means test. Individuals with assets over £23,250 must fully self-fund their care. With average care home fees running at £951 a week (much greater in London) for those over 65, many middle-class families are forced to liquidate their homes and life savings, often leaving no inheritance. 
• Local Authority "Postcode Lottery": Councils administer care locally under the Care Act 2014, but severe underfunding has led to increasingly tight eligibility tests. Across the UK, local budgets are buckling, leading to longer waiting lists, reduced care packages, and complete lack of support for vulnerable older adults. 
• Cross-Subsidies and Market Instability: Because local authorities pay lower rates to care providers than the actual cost of care, providers are heavily reliant on overcharging self-funders to stay afloat. This makes the market highly volatile, with many care homes relying on international recruitment to fill staff shortages amid rising National Living Wage costs. 
• Hospital "Bed Blocking" (Delayed Discharges): When older people are ready to leave local hospitals like those under the NHS trusts (e.g., King's College Hospital or Bromley Healthcare), the lack of local authority-funded social care packages delays their discharge, severely impacting NHS bed capacity and patient flow.  
• Burnout of Unpaid Carers: Because of the prohibitive costs and lack of state-funded social care, millions of unpaid carers—often spouses or adult children—provide over 50 hours of care per week. This frequently forces them to leave the workforce, compromising their own financial security and physical and mental health. 

The unsustainability of this model is widely acknowledged, with expert bodies like The Kings Fund and the Nuffield Trust continually publishing data on the decline of publicly funded care and the resulting crisis for older people.  

 

The Way Forward

Rather than try and invent something from scratch it seems to me that we should use a model that is successful in other countries and work on that. Models often considered successful

Japan

Japan introduced mandatory long-term care insurance in 2000. Everyone aged 40 and over contributes through premiums, with government funding covering a significant share of costs.

Strengths:

• Universal eligibility based on care needs rather than income.
• Professional assessment of care requirements.
• Wide range of home and residential services.
• Reduced burden on family caregivers.

Challenges:

• Rising costs due to rapid population ageing.
• Increasing premiums and government spending.

Germany

Germany operates a mandatory long-term care insurance system funded primarily through payroll contributions.

Strengths:

• Dedicated funding stream.
• People can choose cash benefits for family care or professional services.
• High public support.

Challenges:

• Benefits often do not cover the full cost of intensive residential care.

Netherlands

The Netherlands has one of the world's most comprehensive publicly funded long-term care systems.

Strengths:

• Extensive coverage for severe care needs.
• Strong community and home care services.
• High quality standards.

Challenges:

• Among the most expensive systems globally.

What many experts recommend

A hybrid model is often viewed as the most sustainable, combining:

1. Tax funding for a universal minimum level of care.
2. Mandatory long-term care insurance to create a dedicated funding source.
3. Means-tested assistance for people with lower incomes.
4. Personal co-payments with annual or lifetime caps to protect against catastrophic costs.
5. Strong investment in home-based and preventive care, which is generally less expensive than institutional care.
6. Support for family caregivers through respite services, training, and financial recognition.

 

This will cost! Long term it will cost more than we pay today (allowing for inflation). But in the short- term there will be a large financial hit, the question is do we muddle along as we are today with hundreds of thousands of people not be cared for properly and some selling homes and losing all their assets or move forward to an equitable system? I hope that the major parties agree on a way forward for the benefit of all.