Poll: Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Mk II

[scorza]

Because Corbyn never said such things.

Oh it was only the Shadow Chancellor then. That makes it alright, no cause for concern there at all.

That's what I thought. Corbyn's willingness to allow MPs to vote their conscience is a POSITIVE to me. The same last night where Paxman kept banging on about his personal beliefs not being in the Manifesto and Corbyn semi-patiently explaining that this is what we call "democracy".

He only allows that because he's been a weak leader and needed to placate his MPs. I guarantee you that the realities of government will necessitate the usual three-line whip on his flagship policies.

 

[Steedie]

The idea of Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott 'leading' this country is slightly terrifying.

These clowns shouldn't be anywhere near any kind of power

Yeah pretty much, I'm all for Labour being a genuine challenge to the Tories but under Corbyn, it just shouldn't happen. He is hilariously incompetent (omg media agenda against him!!!111one) and he seems to like similarly incompetent people around him, such as Dianne "Number Cruncher" Abbott.

 

[antijoke]

My take from this debate is that the Scottish situation with regards what they get for free (NHS prescriptions etc) is simply unsustainable.

I don't care for the devolved government issue top be honest, why should the rest of the country face austerity measures and the Scots get off, well scot-free.

 

[div0]

allowing greater retention of wealth via inheritance and less burden on the state.

Can you explain this? I don't follow how the individual can retain more of their personal wealth while at the same time there also being a reduced burden on the state.

 

[ubersonic]

I don't think either of them "won" the debate just survived it, but then given the advantage Corbyn had going in I think it's fair to say he **** the bed.

I absolutley do not agree that "no deal is better than a bad deal"

but overall "the deal" we are getting it just getting worse and worse every year

Sorry couldn't resist XD

 

[Dolph]

Oh it was only the Shadow Chancellor then. That makes it alright, no cause for concern there at all.

It's also worth noting this was not decades ago, it was during the 2015 election campaign.

 

[No1newts]

Oh it was only the Shadow Chancellor then. That makes it alright, no cause for concern there at all.

He only allows that because he's been a weak leader and needed to placate his MPs. I guarantee you that the realities of government will necessitate the usual three-line whip on his flagship policies.

So it's a positive we have politicians who do nothing but obey the centre? Did you by any chance favour the "government" in 1984 over the protagonist?

On last night two thing stood out for me. Corbyn comes across as an actual intelligent, articulate man who has an opinion and convictions and will stick to them. He needs more tv time as he actually looks like someone who will act and not just push vapid slogans (like Maybot) the second was that the Cons still have no policies and a leader with no real convictions just a desire for power. As opposed to the picture early election I think the Cons would benefit more now from minimising any exposure for Maybot and stopping her from opening her vapid mouth as she he has no substance and nothing to say beyond parroting empty slogans provided by her advisors. It's a strange turnaround but she comes across as a real liability now.

The final one was in the aftermath that if even Farage the toxic SOB can be praising Corbyn it shows how far he has come.

I just don't see what people are seeing in the Cons now. Empty policies, hatred of anyone bar the rich, destroying our key pillars of education, policing and NHS and then to top it off a leader who is a soulless vessel. As I read somewhere (no idea where) someone said "I'm beginning to think May is actually just a couple of badgers in a suit masquerading as a politician"

 

[Dolph]

My take from this debate is that the Scottish situation with regards what they get for free (NHS prescriptions etc) is simply unsustainable.

I don't care for the devolved government issue top be honest, why should the rest of the country face austerity measures and the Scots get off, well scot-free.

Devolved government is fine when set up properly. The devolved administrations should only be able to spend what they raise from their own tax choices, which is the mistake labour made when they set up devolution. (Well, I say mistake, it was a deliberate policy to appease their voters by giving them money from the rest of the UK, they never envisioned losing power in Scotland.)

 

[antijoke]

Oh that question from Paxman to May about voting remain and now having to deliver something she believes is bad for the country is gold, solid gold.

Devolved government is fine when set up properly. The devolved administrations should only be able to spend what they raise from their own tax choices, which is the mistake labour made when they set up devolution. (Well, I say mistake, it was a deliberate policy to appease their voters by giving them money from the rest of the UK, they never envisioned losing power in Scotland.)

Yes, it was a massive mistake, I wonder if it's changeable at all without Scotland leaving, and I guess if we decided to change would push Scots to vote leave, and if it was after another vote and they lost I suspect Nicola would call for another vote.

 

[gettothechopper]

Sorry couldn't resist XD

Exactly what i was thinking of when I typed it
The meme is accurate, that of May being Vader continually lowering what we get in return for doing everything we are supposed to!

She just isnt doing a very good job, upon becoming PM she gave a good speech about helping out the "just managing" people - where is that stuff ? nope - just repeat meaningless catchphrases

 

[balky12]

Not under current rules, but if your adult children live with you they can.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/

It's also worth noting that current rules for care in the home also has a £23k limit, but this excludes property.

Neither scenario has a cap on the maximum that can be paid.

The proposed changes, when looked out outside the lies and misinformation spread by some ( similar to tuition fees) the new solution is better than the old, allowing greater retention of wealth via inheritance and less burden on the state.

It's still quite simple to get round with some 'planning' for worst case scenario.

My Nan when she passed left her half of the house to my mum and 3 brothers. Year later my Granddad gets diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer. Couple years later full time care is needed. They wanted the house sold before they would take him into care but due to Granddad not owning the house outright they couldn't do anything about it.

Still... he was in care for 3 years. Cost an arm and a leg.

 

[scorza]

So it's a positive we have politicians who do nothing but obey the centre?

It's a positive that we have a government that can get things done when it needs to.

I honestly don't think the Labour manifesto is worth the paper it's written on. You're telling me that a cabinet led by Corbyn, McDonnell, and Abbot are going to implement the parts of the manifesto they don't agree with? E.g. Trident? I don't think so. The Conservatives by contrast have shown with their manifesto that they are prepared to take the tough decisions that are unfortunately necessary for responsible governments to take. Labour make vague promises like setting up a National Care Service, but can't say what it will look like or how it'll be funded. Momentumites are frothing at the mouth at the prospect of TAX THE RICH! TAX THE RICH! but I rather think that such a service will end up with the poor paying a lot more tax as well.

 

[Dolph]

Can you explain this? I don't follow how the individual can retain more of their personal wealth while at the same time there also being a reduced burden on the state.

That's because it's not on an individual level, but an overall system.

The current approach means that someone who requires long term residential care loses everything apart from their last £23k.

Someone who requires care in the home loses their cash assets up to their last £23k, but nothing is taken from property wealth.

Under the new plan, both residential and in home care needs leave a minimum of £100k in assets, then taking costs up to (a yet uncomfirmed) cap.

So the new plan protects more assets in the circumstances of residential care, but is likely to take more for care in the home (through the inclusion of property wealth) as much of the wealth in the group likely to need care is in the form of property.

By making more people contribute towards there in home care, the burden on the state is reduced. By setting a lower limit more than 4 times higher than currently, the cash rich/asset poor and those in residential care will be able to leave a larger legacy than they can currently.

 

[Dolph]

It's still quite simple to get round with some 'planning' for worst case scenario.

My Nan when she passed left her half of the house to my mum and 3 brothers. Year later my Granddad gets diagnosed with dementia and Alzheimer. Couple years later full time care is needed. They wanted the house sold before they would take him into care but due to Granddad not owning the house outright they couldn't do anything about it.

Still... he was in care for 3 years. Cost an arm and a leg.

Of course, most things can be planned for to a point, but by the sounds of it, they still made your family pay even though they couldn't force the sale of the house.

 

[balky12]

It's also worth noting this was not decades ago, it was during the 2015 election campaign.

Coupled with Dianne Abbot basically saying supporting terrorists was fashionable back in the day...

 

[Hagar]

Not under current rules, but if your adult children live with you they can.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/

It's also worth noting that current rules for care in the home also has a £23k limit, but this excludes property.

Neither scenario has a cap on the maximum that can be paid.

The proposed changes, when looked out outside the lies and misinformation spread by some ( similar to tuition fees) the new solution is better than the old, allowing greater retention of wealth via inheritance and less burden on the state.

The proposed changes, when looked out outside the lies and misinformation spread by some ( similar to tuition fees) the new solution is better than the old, allowing greater retention of wealth for those with estates between 23k and 100k via inheritance and less burden on the state through elderly paying more for their own domiciliary care as the house is now part of the calculation.

As we will have a large increase in people over 75 during the next and following parliaments, this seriously needs the attention of the next government and to place it all on current taxpayers would be unfair. I speak as a 65 year old who could be affected by this measure and generally agree that my generation should pay more.

 

[delta0]

Labour will keep all but £23k. Conservatives will make sure at least £100k is left to pass on.

 

[balky12]

Of course, most things can be planned for to a point, but by the sounds of it, they still made your family pay even though they couldn't force the sale of the house.

Yea, that was due to savings...

I am massively on the fence about the whole thing really. I mean, if people do have the money, why shouldn't they pay for their own care? But then again, you pay tax all your life then during your final years when you are in need, the state isn't there for you?

You can see why it's a very emotional and hot topic.

 

[izzop]

Watching the debate now and Paxman is a ****.

Haven't seen it myself, but one BBC Radio presenter compared him in a tweet as...

Jeremy Paxman is like the shouty **** in the pub who's had 7 Stellas and a line of coke.

 

[Jono]

The idea of Jeremy Corbyn and Dianne Abbott 'leading' this country is slightly terrifying.

These clowns shouldn't be anywhere near any kind of power

This is basically what prevents me from voting labour (comfortably) - I don't know which way I'll vote on election day. I find pretty much all parties disastrous, in some way or other... on various aspects.