Looks like Cocksure might be going back to tory in that case 
Need to look at the details, but if a cap is being brought in then that is a major issue dealt with.
It will be interesting how they try to sell it as not being a back down (not that it matters)
I'm surprised at the fuss over this. It brings home care into line with residential care. I'm not sure why anyone thinks that's a bad idea. And then it quadruples the amount people can keep AND commits that their home cannot be sold until after their death. (I'd like to have seen more info on what happens to surviving partners). In the past children would look after elderly parents. If they no longer do so, why should the rest of society pay to protect their inheritance?
Actually, I would think more of a party that listened and changed policy, even at the risk of the press calling it a back down or a U turn.
I'm fairly sure I've read that surviving partners are taken into account.
It's one of the fairest most socialist polices I've ever seen in a Tory manifesto, just goes to show you the effect media spin has on modern day thinking, the fact that this has become such a big issue based on little more than a few dodgy soundbites from rival leaders.
If anything this will hopefully bring some families a bit closer together, with less 'hand over granny and wait for the inheritance' and a bit more of families taking proper care of their own.
Google is offering this auto-completion:
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/screen-shot-2017-05-22-at-13-44-55-png.865019/
Longer life expectancy is down to genetics and heath choices, infrastructure, the roads are the same everywhere, now't to do with contributions to the state, be a good citizen do your duty and you'll cost less, be a pillock and you'll cost more, eg smoking, drinking, paying for your own kids, unhealthy diet, no exercise, education is open to everyone, education of children starts at home, hospitals are no different where ever you are....
They've all got ugly health cares, enough to scare anyone out of a hospital bed.. 
No, it's not a u-turn, May has already said so.
Did you not see v1.01 of their manifesto?
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/manifesto2017-jpg.865023/
I don't think it's particularly fare if they introduce the cap and it's not means tested.
Say for example they were to set the cap at £100,000 or a yearly cap of £10,000.
That would mean someone with an average priced house in the UK that lived for 10yrs with dementia (average life expectancy on diagnosis) just kept £100,000 = 50% of their assets.
Someone with a house worth twice the average would keep £300,000 = 75% of their assets.
Someone with a £1,000,000 property would keep £900,000 = 90% of their assets.
Basically, anyone who has a property equal to or less than £100k or over £100K the cap will receive additional assistance from the tax payer to cover the costs and protect their assets.
Those between £100k and the cap will not.
Either way, the poorer or richer you are above the cap, the less you will end up paying for care.
If that was in response to my post, then nope.
It's not unfair to the poor, it's unfair to those with average house prices unless it's means tested.
Which appears to be exactly why they ditched the idea of having a cap on it, as any cap benefits the wealthier (at least in asset terms) more than anyone else. However the policy has not been well received so a cap seems to be being re-introduced because most people will feel that it benefits them without thinking that actually the cap benefits those with the greatest assets the most.