Labour ?

Vauxhall mkII posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

So. To sum up Mike and HH above, we're f**cked !

 

Unfortunately, Don, your wrong.

Those of us, lucky enough to have the disposable income to afford a Naim based audio system will be, at worst inconvenienced by the impact of another Tory government and the inevitable fallout from a poorly executed exit from the EU.

Some may even benefit from the relaxation of the financial markets that will inevitably result. 

The real victims will be those, less lucky, and mainly younger than us, in minimum wage, zero hour contracts, service sector and care sector roles. They will actually suffer.

So, the amusing spectator sport this thread narrates, that generates eloquent quips and new names for our enemies, is of little consequence other than bragging rights when the election is over, to those that called it correctly.

For some, the result of this General Election is quite literally a matter of life and death,

Paul.

I agree with that analysis, Paul.  Most of us on here probably have a degree of isolation from the decisions made by whatever party forms the next government.  Nonetheless, I think it legitimate to debate what we think is best for the country. For my part, I know I would pay more tax under LimpDem and Labour manifesto plans, so on that self-interested basis I ought  to support the Conservatives.  However, I would be content to pay, say, £1k in tax a year more if I thought the money would make a substantial difference to improving education, health and social care services in the country.  After all, we pay tax as the price for living in a civilised society and it pains me when I see what it happening in many of our public services today. 

"but at least their manifesto offers hope," and so does Father Christmas in December but that's also a fairy tale and we all in up in debt for that too

Mike-B posted:

Eloise posted:

That pre-supposes she was a remainer in the first place and not just taking a side for the sake of gaining power.  As for U-turns: what do you call promising not to hold a GE, then doing completely the opposite; what do you call her stance on social care?

Why is any change in politics called a U-turn, whereas in business its called a policy change or plan adjustment.   I worked with a 1 year plan that included a half year review to consider any required adjustments to achieve objectives,  then at each end of year plan period we considered any adjustments required for the 3 year plan.  So this to me is all very normal.            

Because in business its a change in policy to enable the company to improve.  In the case of politics and TM in particular it's because they see it as a advantage to gain and keep power.  It's a U-turn because they spent the last election belittling ideas they now whole heartedly support.  It's not about improving anything other than the amount of power they have.

Calling an early GE is a sensible change in the original plan to ensure continuity over 5 years rather than the short 3 years up to 2020 to enable completion of the brexit process & whatever may be left over & longer term after that.                  

Brexit is a load of rubbish as a justification.  The GE has been called early to let "dictator" May ignore anyone who disagrees with her.  She saw it as an opportunity to crush the opposition.  

The social care proposal is long overdue, it's been a mess for so many years & no one has had the strength/vision/willingness to take on what needs to be done.   Nothing is fixed,  it's a  manifesto proposal to an existing system & as such has to go to green paper,  so hopefully the cross party cooperation system will end up with a mutually workable end result.   

Social care is a mess... but making individuals pay for it is not a fair solution.  It's not fair that someone who has the misfortune to suffer from (say) dementia has to "pay" (in inverted commas because yes I know the payments won't be required till after death) for their care while those who suffer from cancer say get everything paid for by the state.

Basically you are saying we should just "trust" her and let her do what ever she thinks!  The manifesto is exactly where details need to be put in.

Like many on this forum I have great concerns in respect of May and Davis negotiating our exit from the EU. My belief is they are both more untrustworthy than the average politician - as a cop who suffered May as Home Secretary for the last four years of my service, believe me when I say that woman cannot be trusted.

That said, I do believe the Tories have got it more or less right when it comes to social care. None of us pay sufficient via taxation to fund even ten years at a minimum of £50k per year (not including nursing or medical care). Children have no right to inherit anything other than what remains after their parents have paid to be looked after (if necessary) for their final years. If the children want to inherit that much, let them look after their parents as used to happen when the family really meant something! We are all living far too long for the traditional funding models to work.

Although not a traditional Labour supporter, and as someone who distrusts someone with Corbyn's SWP and Trotskyist past (and has a strong urge to put a boot through the telly when Abbot and McDonnell appear), I do empathise with much of their manifesto, and it certainly has been costed far more carefully than anything the Tories have produced. I can't help but feel that the Health Service will cease to exist within 10 years under the Tories, whereas under a Labour government it may have a fighting chance.

I had high hopes of the LibDems (particularly as I live in Cornwall), but I'm afraid Clegg fu**ed it with his inability to resist a share of high office - under Tim 'nice but dim' Farron they really are political nonentities now.

So, with great misgivings, it has to be a vote for Labour. I don't think they'll win, but perhaps it will be close enough to keep the public sector destroyers in check?

Timmo1341 posted:

That said, I do believe the Tories have got it more or less right when it comes to social care. None of us pay sufficient via taxation to fund even ten years at a minimum of £50k per year (not including nursing or medical care). Children have no right to inherit anything other than what remains after their parents have paid to be looked after (if necessary) for their final years. If the children want to inherit that much, let them look after their parents as used to happen when the family really meant something! We are all living far too long for the traditional funding models to work. 

Timmo ... I don't completely disagree with you, but when does "social" care become "nursing" care?  Most social care is in a wider term nursing care which is required because someone has an illness, albeit a "mental" illness rather than a physical illness.  Why should someone who at (say) 60 develops dementia have to pay for all their care, while someone who at the same age develops cancer for the most part gets their care completely paid for.  It's a lottery and makes some illnesses more worthy than other illnesses.

If children have no right to inherit, wouldn't the fairer solution be to increase inheritance tax?  But no, the Tories see that as a vote loser and are committed still to increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £1million (with caveats).

Perhaps at death all care which has been required over a person's lifetime should be calculated and claimed against the person's estate?

Eloise posted:

Timmo1341 posted:

That said, I do believe the Tories have got it more or less right when it comes to social care. None of us pay sufficient via taxation to fund even ten years at a minimum of £50k per year (not including nursing or medical care). Children have no right to inherit anything other than what remains after their parents have paid to be looked after (if necessary) for their final years. If the children want to inherit that much, let them look after their parents as used to happen when the family really meant something! We are all living far too long for the traditional funding models to work. 

Timmo ... I don't completely disagree with you, but when does "social" care become "nursing" care?  Most social care is in a wider term nursing care which is required because someone has an illness, albeit a "mental" illness rather than a physical illness.  Why should someone who at (say) 60 develops dementia have to pay for all their care, while someone who at the same age develops cancer for the most part gets their care completely paid for.  It's a lottery and makes some illnesses more worthy than other illnesses.

If children have no right to inherit, wouldn't the fairer solution be to increase inheritance tax?  But no, the Tories see that as a vote loser and are committed still to increasing the inheritance tax threshold to £1million (with caveats).

Perhaps at death all care which has been required over a person's lifetime should be calculated and claimed against the person's estate?

It may be a little trite, but what about "....... from each according to their means....."?

I do think you make a good point in respect of dementia being an illness, albeit more or less untreatable and, in most circumstances, not as quick a killer as cancer, and therefore much more expensive to society. Having just, with my brother and sister, cared for my mother in her own home for 12 months as she died from cancer, I have first hand experience of the dilemmas faced by many. We had all agreed that we would have sold her bungalow to fund care home fees had that been what she wanted, but she wanted to stay in her own home and we were fortunate enough to be able to support her through that. My wife's parents, on the other hand, are incapable of independent living and have liquidated all their assets to fund living in care at an annual cost of £110k per annum. If they live for more than 5 or 6 years there won't be much to inherit!! But why should that be a problem? The NHS was never designed to support people at the State's expense over periods of years, certainly not in the numbers and for the periods of time we're witnessing today.

A new funding model has to evolve, and if that means higher taxation and an end to handing down property worth hundreds of thousands to those who have done nothing to earn it, then so be it!

Just a thought or two!!

I think Labour will attract the younger people who do know what its like under labour.  Their policy for me is socialism with a national Credit Card where we all land up in debt.  This could be dangerous as Labour come across as the patient socialist party who are not into nuclear war and want everybody to have somewhere to live, to be cared for either in work or on benefits.  Nationalise all transport and energy providers, so that the important bodies are under goverment control and not under greedy profiteering companies.  Have understanding for all causes (no matter how contraversial they are) because this is the voice of reason.  All the above can come accross as very enticing opposite proposition in comparison to the usual standard political promises of the Conservative party.  For someone like me, I don't think it will work, but for someone young with hope could be a tempting option.  Very dangerous, for if they win, get ready to be walloped by taxes..  

I think a lot of confusion’s been caused by the incorrectly labelling the policy as a dementia tax. I wonder who was responsible for that.

Have the tories actually said the policy applies to dementia sufferers.

I think the government should set an age, below which, the state pays for social and nursing care. With different ages for different conditions, based on the probability of an individual suffering from a particular disease at that age.

Eloise posted:

 It's a U-turn because..................  It's not about improving anything other than the amount of power they have.

Brexit is a load of rubbish as a justification.  The GE has been called early to let "dictator" May ignore anyone who disagrees with her.  She saw it as an opportunity to crush the opposition.

Basically you are saying we should just "trust" her and let her do what ever she thinks!  The manifesto is exactly where details need to be put in.

This is much as I expected & is exactly the kind of left wing politic & rhetoric that will ensure labour fail next week.   Lets just leave it & agree to disagree.

fatcat posted:

I think a lot of confusion’s been caused by the incorrectly labelling the policy as a dementia tax. I wonder who was responsible for that.   Have the tories actually said the policy applies to dementia sufferers.

I think the government should set an age, below which, the state pays for social and nursing care. With different ages for different conditions, based on the probability of an individual suffering from a particular disease at that age. 

No the tories have not said it applies to anything specific.   But I have to say it was very badly introduced & was wide open opportunity for labour & all the other party's to make just that point,  Its self inflicted damage by the tories IMO.

I do welcome the increase from £23,000 to £100,000 as a cap,  however it has to go to Green Paper & as with all these things the devil will be in the detail,  I await in anticipation as someone who has been going through & paying for over a long period of various levels of care with a family member with dementia.   Fortunately for myself & brothers we had the foresight to take measures to both protect & enable the funding required.  

Mike-B posted:

This is much as I expected & is exactly the kind of left wing politic & rhetoric that will ensure labour fail next week.   Lets just leave it & agree to disagree.

Sorry ... but that's hypocritical!

Whatever happens we're in the sh*t. 

Can someone please tell me why Labour can offer us all this amazing life but the Tories can't?  

And who's going to pay the £800 a month to house all these skint people out there who are having to rent houses in their retirement in twenty or thirty years time (or sooner)? 

The precious NHS is gonna have to go whoever is in charge.

fatcat posted:

I think a lot of confusion’s been caused by the incorrectly labelling the policy as a dementia tax. I wonder who was responsible for that.

The Telegraph and Sun as well as Labour...

Have the tories actually said the policy applies to dementia sufferers.

Anyone who requires "social" care...

I think the government should set an age, below which, the state pays for social and nursing care. With different ages for different conditions, based on the probability of an individual suffering from a particular disease at that age.

I think everyone should pay a fair contribution to everyone's social care.  Increased inheritance tax for all with an attempt to prevent the kind of avoidance David Cameron's father went through would be a good start...

This "dementia" tax will only affect moderately well off people who were prudently saving to help their offspring.

poor people won't have any savings or property worth worrying about.

wasters will have blown every penny anyway, and sod the kids.

the rich will think the odd £100k pa is peanuts compared to the inheritance tax on their £10m estate.

the cplever guys will set up trust funds to ensure their assets are safe from graspin

Watching the TV debate on C4. Corby came across very well in the audience Q&A, looking confident and relaxed - rather like a man who believes what he says, and his happy what he belives. He also came through a mauling from Paxo pretty well.

I think it'll be interesting to see how the notoriously brittle May will do, especially if the questioning gets hostile.

She comes across as not very interesting, I don't seem able to concentrate on what she's saying.

fatcat posted:

She comes across as not very interesting, I don't seem able to concentrate on what she's saying.

Well she's not very interesting FC. And she's not saying a huge amount, so there's not much to concentrate on.

fatcat posted:

She comes across as not very interesting,

Maybe she's trying to bore us all into acquiescence.

Kevin-W posted:

fatcat posted:

She comes across as not very interesting,

Maybe she's trying to bore us all into acquiescence.

I'm actually getting bored with Jeremy Paxman, Kev. Time to retire you old foggy!

Tony2011 posted:

I'm actually getting bored with Jeremy Paxman, Kev. Time to retire you old foggy!

I felt the PM rather put Paxo in his place, and showed him up as being simply rude and argumentative .......... not before time too. 

+1

 Jeremy paxman has to be one of the most arrogant interviewers, what an embarrassment. He needs to be put out to pasture asap

Tony2011 posted:

Kevin-W posted:

fatcat posted:

She comes across as not very interesting,

Maybe she's trying to bore us all into acquiescence.

I'm actually getting bored with Jeremy Paxman, Kev. Time to retire you old foggy!

Yes, Andrew Neil is a much better 'tough' interviewer. He doesn't sneer for a start.

Kevin-W posted:

Tony2011 posted:

Kevin-W posted:

fatcat posted:

She comes across as not very interesting,

Maybe she's trying to bore us all into acquiescence.

I'm actually getting bored with Jeremy Paxman, Kev. Time to retire you old foggy!

Yes, Andrew Neil is a much better 'tough' interviewer. He doesn't sneer for a start.

I would suggest Andrew Marr...i prefer someone with a smaller head...

I switched off halfway through the PM's Q and A so didn't hear the whole thing, Paxo's tired old synthetic indignation in his questioning of Corbyn had me thinking how this old media format really looked so over.

How this dismal election needs its Sharon Storer or Prescott's egg moment.

None of the current interviewers come close to Brian Walden.

And what a theme tune.