Ge 2017

SocketRocket said:
Some of you are just making it up. When the security level becomes 'Critical' then Troops are put on the street to back up the police. What is it about that you find difficult to understand? When the level was lowered they were removed.
Click to expand...

What I'm finding difficult to understand is why after being warned repeatedly by experts that we risk becoming more and more vulnerable by cutting security services, she went ahead and done it anyway.

Her arrogance knows no bounds
 
SocketRocket said:
Some of you are just making it up. When the security level becomes 'Critical' then Troops are put on the street to back up the police. What is it about that you find difficult to understand? When the level was lowered they were removed.
Click to expand...
Rubbish, they are simply another tool in her toolbox,
We won't see troops everytime the alert state goes to Critical.
 
Hobbit said:
You seem to have missed my point. All of them fib!

I see Corbyn has learned the art of the U-turn. He's gone from not supporting shoot to kill to now saying he'll support the police in any level of force they deem appropriate.
Click to expand...

I know they do - but only get found out AFTER they get elected. But this is obvious a blatant fib and she stands there insistent that there was always going to be a cap subsequent to a consultative Green Paper. Really? I quote from page 65 of the Conservative Party Manifesto 2017

Under the current system, care costs deplete an individual’s assets, including in some
cases the family home, down to £23,250 or even less. These costs can be catastrophic
for those with modest or medium wealth. One purpose of long-term saving is to cover
needs in old age; those who can should rightly contribute to their care from savings
and accumulated wealth, rather than expecting current and future taxpayers to carry
the cost on their behalf. Moreover, many older people have built considerable property
assets due to rising property prices. Reconciling these competing pressures fairly and in
a sustainable way has challenged many governments of the past. We intend to tackle this
with three connected measures.

First, we will align the future basis for means-testing for domiciliary care with that for
residential care, so that people are looked after in the place that is best for them. This will
mean that the value of the family home will be taken into account along with other assets
and income, whether care is provided at home, or in a residential or nursing care home.

Second, to ensure this is fair, we will introduce a single capital floor, set at £100,000,
more than four times the current means test threshold. This will ensure that, no matter
how large the cost of care turns out to be, people will always retain at least £100,000 of
their savings and assets, including value in the family home.

Third, we will extend the current freedom to defer payments for residential care to those
receiving care at home, so no-one will have to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care.
We believe this powerful combination maximises protection for pensioner households
with modest assets, often invested in the family home, while remaining affordable
for taxpayers. We consider it more equitable, within and across the generations, than
the proposals following the Dilnot Report, which mostly benefited a small number of
wealthier people.

It's not there is it? Neither the cap nor the green Paper. And it would be pretty darned critical to state that there would be a cap if the intention was to have one. The omission was not a mistake.
 
Last edited:
But cap or no cap, it's better than the current system

The day after the labour manifesto was published Jezza added an extra bit regarding writing off existing student loans ( nobody is having a go at him for changing published policy or for it being unaffordable)
 
PhilTheFragger said:
But cap or no cap, it's better than the current system

The day after the labour manifesto was published Jezza added an extra bit regarding writing off existing student loans ( nobody is having a go at him for changing published policy or for it being unaffordable)
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with the policy.

But many elderly homeowners and their families clearly do not see the lack of a cap as making a good policy - for them a cap is utterly fundamental to it being acceptable of not. And there is absolutely no mention of cap or consultation about one in the manifesto. None at all. Yet May stands there - brass neck - complaining that their policy has been misrepresented, scaremongering. Saying that the consultation on a cap was always intended. Just not true. If she can stand in front of us and brazenly fib when seeking our support what else is she saying that we can't believe a word of. She is totally untrustworthy. What price a calamitous Brexit No Deal?
 
richy said:
What I'm finding difficult to understand is why after being warned repeatedly by experts that we risk becoming more and more vulnerable by cutting security services, she went ahead and done it anyway.

Her arrogance knows no bounds
Click to expand...
You just dont want to understand why. Where would you cut public services if you had to do it, the country has a massive debt that is fed by public spending. How about taking out of public sector pensions, Social Housing, Welfare benefits, where would the cuts be made that would satisfy you and don't suggest they didn't need to be made.

Oh! and cutting MP's expenses wouldn't be the answer just in case that turns up.
 
Last edited:
SocketRocket said:
You just dont want to understand why. Where would you cut public services if you had to do it, the country has a massive debt that is fed by public spending. How about taking out of public sector pensions, Social Housing, Welfare benefits, where would the cuts be made that would satisfy you and don't suggest they didn't need to be made.
Click to expand...

Take it out of MP's pay rises and cut their expenses or the overseas aid budget or increase taxes for everyone by a penny or chase after the tax dodgers or use the pot that they found to rescue the banks.

Health and Security of the nation should come first.
 
pauldj42 said:
Rubbish, they are simply another tool in her toolbox,
We won't see troops everytime the alert state goes to Critical.
Click to expand...
Why was it done then, are you suggesting it was because we didnt have enough Police? You are being very simplistic in your condemnation IMO.
 
SocketRocket said:
You just dont want to understand why. Where would you cut public services if you had to do it, the country has a massive debt that is fed by public spending. How about taking out of public sector pensions, Social Housing, Welfare benefits, where would the cuts be made that would satisfy you and don't suggest they didn't need to be made.

Oh! and cutting MP's expenses wouldn't be the answer just in case that turns up.
Click to expand...

pauldj42 said:
Take it out of MP's pay rises and cut their expenses or the overseas aid budget or increase taxes for everyone by a penny or chase after the tax dodgers or use the pot that they found to rescue the banks.

Health and Security of the nation should come first.
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul
 
SocketRocket said:
Why was it done then, are you suggesting it was because we didnt have enough Police? You are being very simplistic in your condemnation IMO.
Click to expand...
If you listened or read the Government announcement then you would of heard or read that yes it was that simplistic, they put Troops on the streets in high profile areas to release police back to policeing, ie, they didn't have enough Police to provide adequate security to said places and carry on with other duties, therefore we either don't have enough Police or they are being mismanaged, which one do you think it was?
 
pauldj42 said:
If you listened or read the Government announcement then you would of heard or read that yes it was that simplistic, they put Troops on the streets in high profile areas to release police back to policeing, ie, they didn't have enough Police to provide adequate security to said places and carry on with other duties, therefore we either don't have enough Police or they are being mismanaged, which one do you think it was?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if it was either of them. I have already explained why we saw Troops on the Street and why. If you wish to make some kind of anti Tory point score from it then that's your prerogative, I just don't subscribe to it. Police numbers have fallen and it's all part of the massive deficit created in 2010, painful cuts have been made to do something about it and if Labour are allowed to get into Government then all the hardship we have been through will be wasted as they will just borrow us into the same mess again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Surrey Golf Course Membership
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Doon frae Troon
D
R
motocaddy s1 pro doesn't stop
Replies
1
Views
718
Ridger
R
Klimski
Honma TW XP-1 driver
Replies
7
Views
858
Orikoru
Orikoru
Crazyface
Competition Secretary
2
Replies
23
Views
2K
irip
I
G
Powakaddy CT6 intermittent problem
Replies
0
Views
1K
Grimmett
G
Top