Hollywood comes out to bat for Obama: video round-up

Sarah Jessica Parker, Lena Dunham, and Lucas Gray have all produced videos in support of the president.

Under two weeks to go until the US election, and the media world is going headfirst into its support of both candidates. But mainly Obama.

Sarah Jessica Parker appeared on Access Hollywood and passionately gave her reasons for supporting Obama (after a detour about her trip to collect Irish groceries which, apparently, are a thing) – and for opposing Romney.

Jezebel, who posted the video, sum up her appearance:

Romney's flip-flopping, almost accidentally shows her home address on National TV because she's JUST LIKE US, acknowledges that she would be better off financially with Romney as president but she's concerned about equality and women's rights, she won't move to Canada if Romney wins because she will not give up on this country, she is all about women voting, WOMEN VOTE DAMMIT OR SHE WILL COME AFTER YOU. . .

SJP for president! OF MY HEART.

Elsewhere, animator Lucas Gray, who has previously worked on the Simpsons and Family Guy, wrote and directed a superb three-minute adaptation of one of Obama's speeches into a film called Why Obama Now. It focuses on attacking the concept of "trickle down" economics, and does a remarkably good job. Plus, it has graphs, but doesn't scare people with them:

Finally, Lena Dunham, writer, director and star of Sky's Girls, has produced a sweetly funny video about her first time (voting), aimed at people in the same situation this year as she was last election:

The president speaks. Image from the video "Why Obama Now"

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's U-Turn may have just traded one problem for another

The problems of the policy have been moved, not eradicated. 

That didn’t take long. Theresa May has U-Turned on her plan to make people personally liable for the costs of social care until they have just £100,000 worth of assets, including property, left.

As the average home is valued at £317,000, in practice, that meant that most property owners would have to remortgage their house in order to pay for the cost of their social care. That upwards of 75 per cent of baby boomers – the largest group in the UK, both in terms of raw numbers and their higher tendency to vote – own their homes made the proposal politically toxic.

(The political pain is more acute when you remember that, on the whole, the properties owned by the elderly are worth more than those owned by the young. Why? Because most first-time buyers purchase small flats and most retirees are in large family homes.)

The proposal would have meant that while people who in old age fall foul of long-term degenerative illnesses like Alzheimers would in practice face an inheritance tax threshold of £100,000, people who die suddenly would face one of £1m, ten times higher than that paid by those requiring longer-term care. Small wonder the proposal was swiftly dubbed a “dementia tax”.

The Conservatives are now proposing “an absolute limit on the amount people have to pay for their care costs”. The actual amount is TBD, and will be the subject of a consultation should the Tories win the election. May went further, laying out the following guarantees:

“We are proposing the right funding model for social care.  We will make sure nobody has to sell their family home to pay for care.  We will make sure there’s an absolute limit on what people need to pay. And you will never have to go below £100,000 of your savings, so you will always have something to pass on to your family.”

There are a couple of problems here. The proposed policy already had a cap of sorts –on the amount you were allowed to have left over from meeting your own care costs, ie, under £100,000. Although the system – effectively an inheritance tax by lottery – displeased practically everyone and spooked elderly voters, it was at least progressive, in that the lottery was paid by people with assets above £100,000.

Under the new proposal, the lottery remains in place – if you die quickly or don’t require expensive social care, you get to keep all your assets, large or small – but the losers are the poorest pensioners. (Put simply, if there is a cap on costs at £25,000, then people with assets below that in value will see them swallowed up, but people with assets above that value will have them protected.)  That is compounded still further if home-owners are allowed to retain their homes.

So it’s still a dementia tax – it’s just a regressive dementia tax.

It also means that the Conservatives have traded going into the election’s final weeks facing accusations that they will force people to sell their own homes for going into the election facing questions over what a “reasonable” cap on care costs is, and you don’t have to be very imaginative to see how that could cause them trouble.

They’ve U-Turned alright, but they may simply have swerved away from one collision into another.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.

0800 7318496