Ge 2017

[Old Skier]

Its obvious that the red mist takes over. To categorically call Theresa May a liar in writing may not be your wisest move.

In your simple world TM lies yet JC is the front of truth. Is this the same wonderland where Alice has conversations with a White Rabbit?

Only Tory lie don't you know.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Only Tory lie don't you know.

I think it's more the fact that when any Party lies and is caught out, rather than admitting to it or discussing it, people throw accussations back and deflect from the lie.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Going back to policies,

Im struggling to see what the problem is with the Tory's so called "Dementia Tax"

at the moment, if you need long term care, then you have to pay for it, pay for it now, possibly sell your home, and keep paying until you die or are down to your last £23250.
at which point the state/local council kicks in and takes over.

Under the proposed scheme, if you need long term care , you wouldnt need to pay for it now, there would be no need to sell your house while you were alive, when you died, the cost of care would be reclaimed from the sale of your house. but they would leave your estate with £100,000 (4 times the current limit)

its not perfect, but its better. the addition of a cap is better still and there would have to be arrangements for surviving partners, ie house is sold after 2nd death and the limit is £100,000 each, so £200,000 would be left in a joint estate. (assuming both needed care)

I cant see why its getting all the bad press?

 

[SocketRocket]

I do understand the costs are very big to the state but what seems wrong is if someone becomes ill with any other condition the state covers the costs of treatment, if someone suffers vascular dementia then they have to pay through their estate.

 

[Hobbit]

Going back to policies,

Im struggling to see what the problem is with the Tory's so called "Dementia Tax"

at the moment, if you need long term care, then you have to pay for it, pay for it now, possibly sell your home, and keep paying until you die or are down to your last £23250.
at which point the state/local council kicks in and takes over.

Under the proposed scheme, if you need long term care , you wouldnt need to pay for it now, there would be no need to sell your house while you were alive, when you died, the cost of care would be reclaimed from the sale of your house. but they would leave your estate with £100,000 (4 times the current limit)

its not perfect, but its better. the addition of a cap is better still and there would have to be arrangements for surviving partners, ie house is sold after 2nd death and the limit is £100,000 each, so £200,000 would be left in a joint estate. (assuming both needed care)

I cant see why its getting all the bad press?

Bit like the dreaded poll tax. The concept, in my opinion was good. Pay for use. Why should an 80 yr old, single person pay the same as a family of 4 adults next door?

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I do understand the costs are very big to the state but what seems wrong is if someone becomes ill with any other condition the state covers the costs of treatment, if someone suffers vascular dementia then they have to pay through their estate.

Totally agree with this.
Yet another ill thought out plan by the Tories.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

If you need care, in a home or in your own home, for whatever reason, you will need to pay for it, this includes people who have had strokes,cardio, pulmonary, falls or just frail and nothing to do with dementia

I do accept that a large number of people seeking care are dementia sufferers . but if they need care, the proposed system is better than the old system for everyone.

in my opinion
certainly not perfect, but better

 

[Hobbit]

I do understand the costs are very big to the state but what seems wrong is if someone becomes ill with any other condition the state covers the costs of treatment, if someone suffers vascular dementia then they have to pay through their estate.

Totally agree with this.
Yet another ill thought out plan by the Tories.

But what is the right answer? Who should pay? Is the answer that most people have already paid via NI and tax? Just where is it going so wrong?

Its pretty clear a number of areas, e.g. the NHS, education and the welfare state need a decent cash injection. Taxing the super rich brings in little more as there are relatively few of them. That's just a vote grab, creating a story that rich is bad. A left wing version of the sort of thing you'd see in the DM. I'd much sooner see a 1p the pound off everyone, but raise the allowance for those on minimum wage

It it would bring in more. And scrap HS2 and the 3rd runway for LHR = spend less on vanity projects.

 

[SocketRocket]

But what is the right answer? Who should pay? Is the answer that most people have already paid via NI and tax? Just where is it going so wrong?

Its pretty clear a number of areas, e.g. the NHS, education and the welfare state need a decent cash injection. Taxing the super rich brings in little more as there are relatively few of them. That's just a vote grab, creating a story that rich is bad. A left wing version of the sort of thing you'd see in the DM. I'd much sooner see a 1p the pound off everyone, but raise the allowance for those on minimum wage

It it would bring in more. And scrap HS2 and the 3rd runway for LHR = spend less on vanity projects.

Maybe due to the fact that we have moved into an era with higher numbers of older people that will result in a need for more geriatric care we should consider an insurance scheme where we pay over say 30 years for our care costs , otherwise the cost will come from our estate if possible.

One of the issues at he moment is that anyone who does not create any wealth will get the service completely free, it almost encourages people to go on a spending frenzy as they get older or make large cash presents to their children. People could also take out one of these loans against their property that get paid back with interest when they die from the properties value. Surely an insurance scheme would be better although it's a bit late for the boomers.

 

[Hacker Khan]

But what is the right answer? Who should pay? Is the answer that most people have already paid via NI and tax? Just where is it going so wrong?

Its pretty clear a number of areas, e.g. the NHS, education and the welfare state need a decent cash injection. Taxing the super rich brings in little more as there are relatively few of them. That's just a vote grab, creating a story that rich is bad. A left wing version of the sort of thing you'd see in the DM. I'd much sooner see a 1p the pound off everyone, but raise the allowance for those on minimum wage

It it would bring in more. And scrap HS2 and the 3rd runway for LHR = spend less on vanity projects.

Agree with all of that apart form the transportation bits. I would argue a transport system fit for purpose is needed as part of a modern nation. But I see no issue with adding a bit of tax on so our public services work.

 

[Hobbit]

Agree with all of that apart form the transportation bits. I would argue a transport system fit for purpose is needed as part of a modern nation. But I see no issue with adding a bit of tax on so our public services work.

I would say London Euston to Birmingham New Street talking 1 hour 25 mins is perfectly acceptable, especially as such a short journey will only see 20 mins saved. If it was improving the line from a shunter to high speed I'd agree with you but it's a huge amount of money, that could better used elsewhere, for negligible gain.

 

[Hobbit]

Yes - politicians make promises - some they keep- some they don't - some they might never really intend to deliver. But May lying about the cap is different because she is asking us to trust HER. Much is said about Corbyn being dangerous for UK - ay least he has principles that he sticks to - absolutely. I fear that May is looking more and more dangerous and unreliable day-by-day.

You rip May for her miss spokes but don't highlight any of Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell miss spokes. They're equally as bad.

Did Corbyn unequivocally say he approved of the shoot to kill employed in London last night? No he didn't. Do I trust him with the security of this country? No, absolutely not.

All 4 politicians miss speak but there's only one I trust with our security.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

You rip May for her miss spokes but don't highlight any of Corbyn, Abbott, McDonnell miss spokes. They're equally as bad.

Did Corbyn unequivocally say he approved of the shoot to kill employed in London last night? No he didn't. Do I trust him with the security of this country? No, absolutely not.

All 4 politicians miss speak but there's only one I trust with our security.

How can you trust the tories with our security, all the security services have been slashed under their watch, we now have an Army that would comfortably fit into wembley stadium, a Navy with fewer ships and an Air Force that hires in Aeroplanes to move anywhere, add to that the 20,000 less coppers since 2010 and I really don't get this trust you have in them.

 

[Old Skier]

Not happy with SF size but just one little point. The RAF have been using hired in ac since the early 80s. I would also point out that all governments have been cutting the SF since the 70s.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

How can you trust the tories with our security, all the security services have been slashed under their watch, we now have an Army that would comfortably fit into wembley stadium, a Navy with fewer ships and an Air Force that hires in Aeroplanes to move anywhere, add to that the 20,000 less coppers since 2010 and I really don't get this trust you have in them.

The aftermath of Manchester and London last night would indicate that our security forces are spot on point.

again I agree that in a perfect world, there would be more of each section, but cuts had to be made everywhere to try and sort out the financial mess that Labour left.
Armed forces etc are an easy target,as they are expensive but again I agree that you do not want to cut them any more .

 

[SteveJay]

How can you trust the tories with our security, all the security services have been slashed under their watch, we now have an Army that would comfortably fit into wembley stadium, a Navy with fewer ships and an Air Force that hires in Aeroplanes to move anywhere, add to that the 20,000 less coppers since 2010 and I really don't get this trust you have in them.

It's all OK now......ISIS are trembling in their boots, as May has said "enough is enough"
Well PM, show some bloody leadership and tell us what you are going to do now enough is enough. Then I might consider voting for your party!!!

 

[Old Skier]

The aftermath of Manchester and London last night would indicate that our security forces are spot on point.

again I agree that in a perfect world, there would be more of each section, but cuts had to be made everywhere to try and sort out the financial mess that Labour left.
Armed forces etc are an easy target,as they are expensive but again I agree that you do not want to cut them any more .

Especially since the one army concept has completly failed.

 

[SocketRocket]

It's all OK now......ISIS are trembling in their boots, as May has said "enough is enough"
Well PM, show some bloody leadership and tell us what you are going to do now enough is enough. Then I might consider voting for your party!!!

Yes that's right and anything she tries to do will be decried by people like you. How tough do you think she should be then?

 

[Deleted member 16999]

The aftermath of Manchester and London last night would indicate that our security forces are spot on point.

again I agree that in a perfect world, there would be more of each section, but cuts had to be made everywhere to try and sort out the financial mess that Labour left.
Armed forces etc are an easy target,as they are expensive but again I agree that you do not want to cut them any more .

Last night it showed me the excellent reaction to such attrocities of the Police, she accussed the police of scaremongering when they claimed they wouldn't be able to cope and we'd see troops on the streets, last week we witnessed another u turn when troops deployed on to the streets, we can't keep going back and blaming labour, the tories have had 7 years, 7 years of reducing the Police and Armed Forces, 7 years of rise in crime, today "enough is enough" why wasn't it enough after Westminster or Lee Rigby.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Yes that's right and anything she tries to do will be decried by people like you. How tough do you think she should be then?

Remember Fragger's mantra!