General Election June 8th

[Metal Biker]

I see the Mail loves the new cuddly conservatism....

"Unashamedly moral", putting the needs of "ordinary" working families first, a better deal for "mainstream" Britain.

It takes a special type of chutzpah to put the word "honest" next to a picture of May.

Who says words don't matter.

For someone who hates the Daily Mail you certainly want people who don't read it to know what they are saying.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

For someone who hates the Daily Mail you certainly want people who don't read it to know what they are saying.

It's mentioned on virtually every page of this and the election thread. I'm starting to think they're employed by it,
with a brief of mentioning it every time someone disagrees with them. As they say, there's no such thing as bad
publicity, and this publication gets shedloads of publicity by the very people who profess to hate it.
No wonder the Tories are a fortnight ahead in the polls, every fucker's reading it now.

 

[Metal Biker]

It's mentioned on virtually every page of this and the election thread. I'm starting to think they're employed by it,
with a brief of mentioning it every time someone disagrees with them. As they say, there's no such thing as bad
publicity, and this publication gets shedloads of publicity by the very people who profess to hate it.
No wonder the Tories are a fortnight ahead in the polls, every fucker's reading it now.

"But look, look at what the Daily FAIL is saying now, those Tory sycophants!"

Everyone else:

We don't read it, but they want to draw our attention to what their opinion is? I really don't see the point of constantly bombarding us with headlines from a paper few of us read, respect or take heed from. The only reason I can think of is becuase they believe we've all been duped by reading and believing headlines from the Mail as the explanation as to why Labour's support is tanking publicly.

The reality that the Daily Mail has had nothing to do with is simply too inconceivable as that leaves them with the reality that Labour are just...not...relatable.

 

[inbetween]

The interesting thing about the Conservative manifesto and May's pitch is that there's been an apparent re-polarisation of politics. In the recent past the main parties were either significantly to the right or to the left, with no middle ground. May's apparently moved the Tories towards the left (although whether that's her actual intention remains to be seen). Previously Thatcher moved politics very much to the right, with the Labour party following her. Corbyn, even if he doesn't win, has moved the debate very much leftwards.

This is mostly because of Brexit where even this hard left Labour have moved right although I am still unsure of exactly what they want to achieve. Labour voters have a dilemma on Brexit and that is whether to trust Corbyn to not relent on everything or they may have to take their vote elsewhere. May moving to the left is completely about appealing to those people who both want a strong Brexit response but whom also traditionally vote Labour.

She already stands to hoover up the vast majority of UKIP votes and if she can grab at least some appreciable percentage of Labour voters who are torn between trusting Corbyn then she stands to win big no matter what she does between now and June.

Labour are peddling the hope campaign and they are trying desperately to take things away from Brexit but it is the big issue of the day unfortunately and I imagine this election will be a very simple decision on who trusts who to do the best in the negotiations. The silent majority will unfortunately sway towards Brexit on their decision and on other issues the status quo will remain. I think to many such a huge change to this Labour lot will pose too great a risk with the added risk Brexit may pose in the near future.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

We don't read it, but they want to draw our attention to what their opinion is? I really don't see the point of constantly bombarding us with headlines from a paper few of us read, respect or take heed from.

Because if anyone disagrees with their worldview, they can't possibly have formed these reactionary views,
unless they've been avidly devouring the the Daily Mail.
It can't possibly be that they might have a point.
Can it?

 

[Metal Biker]

Because if anyone disagrees with their worldview, they can't possibly have formed these reactionary views,
unless they've been avidly devouring the the Daily Mail.
It can't possibly be that they might have a point.
Can it?

We...we were lied to...

I've seen the light! Brexit was a mistake! May is evil! All hail Corby, the saviour of us all!

Imagine if we had never read that Daily Mail headline, we'd still be wandering around in our ignorance.

 

[SWP's back]

For someone who hates the Daily Mail you certainly want people who don't read it to know what they are saying.

Doesn't he just.

 

[mcfc1632]

As someone who voted to leave the EU my intention was to hold my nose and vote Tory this time in order to protect Brexit as I saw the tories as the party most likely to deliver a true Brexit.

The news on paying for home care in the event of contracting a disease not on the approved list (ie: a 'dementia tax') has however changed my mind.

I am now voting Labour.

The tories spend your whole life telling you to "save hard and provide for your family". My parents have done exactly that as have both me and my siblings. Now I'm being told by these same tories that if I (or my parents) are unlucky enough to be a victim of one of these exempt illnesses it's tough shit mate. We'll take your house and your savings to pay for your care. Despite paying in to the system your whole life.

It's sick and it's immoral.

Don't get sick. Don't get old. Don't end up in any sort of need. You might well have paid in for decades but instead of using your money to provide for you in desperate circumstances we'll use it to give a huge tax cut to the 5% who can afford to send their kids to private school. We'll use it to give a huge tax cut to big business who already don't pay the full amount.

"Thanks for your Brexit vote you ignorant prole now don't bother us again"

Scum.

I can really understand your view - I am more than a bit surprised to see May bring this forward in the manifesto. It must reflect both her confidence in winning the election and also her determination (you may feel that I am being generous here) to be able to get things through the LORDS. It is hardly possible for the LORDS, flawed function though it is, to knock back things that were set out in a manifesto.

I am in a position where I could well be impacted - Dad has his own home and in his 90s, the in-laws have theirs and are in their late 80s.

That said, having done a lot of work for DH and NHS I have seen first hand the angst of the executives seeking to plan transformations of services to address the major challenges of health & social care. It is a simple fact something difficult will need to be done - tinkering is no answer, this is certainly an area where whatever decisions are taken they will be unpopular with some section(s) of the electorate.

The suspicious part of me thinks that May is being deliberate/callous in her approach here. Where I live, in the SE, all housing is way over the £100k threshold - but there is no way this bad news will lead to the return of any party other than conservatives. In areas where May is targeting vulnerable Labour seats, May's policy will have less impact and there may even be a sense of - well that will teach those southerners...

So this introduces a major risk for those suffering certain illnesses - it is very unpopular, certainly with me - people will take steps to avoid the issue by transferring assets to their children earlier - which makes me further question why she risks the backlash.

But on the other hand - what if you vote Labour, the only other credible alternative? The answer is that you are going to get 'across the board' increases in Inheritance Tax - large rises in Capital Gains Tax - across the board and therefore impacting everyone that has assets beyond their punitively lowered threaholds.

The grass is definitely not greener on the Labour side and I am surprised the shitiness of the Labour position is not more widely picked up on.

 

[mcfc1632]

We don't read it, but they want to draw our attention to what their opinion is? I really don't see the point of constantly bombarding us with headlines from a paper few of us read, respect or take heed from. The only reason I can think of is becuase they believe we've all been duped by reading and believing headlines from the Mail as the explanation as to why Labour's support is tanking publicly.

I think that it is this year's version of those that don't hold the same views as me must be thick.

"........If you do not agree with me then you clearly must be a Daily Mail reader..." - fuck me desperate stuff, they just embarrass themselves

 

[JWBlueman]

I can really understand your view - I am more than a bit surprised to see May bring this forward in the manifesto. It must reflect both her confidence in winning the election and also her determination (you may feel that I am being generous here) to be able to get things through the LORDS. It is hardly possible for the LORDS, flawed function though it is, to knock back things that were set out in a manifesto.

I am in a position where I could well be impacted - Dad has his own home and in his 90s, the in-laws have theirs and are in their late 80s.

That said, having done a lot of work for DH and NHS I have seen first hand the angst of the executives seeking to plan transformations of services to address the major challenges of health & social care. It is a simple fact something difficult will need to be done - tinkering is no answer, this is certainly an area where whatever decisions are taken they will be unpopular with some section(s) of the electorate.

The suspicious part of me thinks that May is being deliberate/callous in her approach here. Where I live, in the SE, all housing is way over the £100k threshold - but there is no way this bad news will lead to the return of any party other than conservatives. In areas where May is targeting vulnerable Labour seats, May's policy will have less impact and there may even be a sense of - well that will teach those southerners...

So this introduces a major risk for those suffering certain illnesses - it is very unpopular, certainly with me - people will take steps to avoid the issue by transferring assets to their children earlier - which makes me further question why she risks the backlash.

But on the other hand - what if you vote Labour, the only other credible alternative? The answer is that you are going to get 'across the board' increases in Inheritance Tax - large rises in Capital Gains Tax - across the board and therefore impacting everyone that has assets beyond their punitively lowered threaholds.

The grass is definitely not greener on the Labour side and I am surprised the shitiness of the Labour position is not more widely picked up on.

I'm genuinely in a pickle this election.

I detest the tories, am a kind of natural Labour (old Labour) voter, but believe passionately (and have done for 40 years) in the right of this country to be free and independent of the European Union.

The Labour Party I grew up voting for was of a similar position re the EU and I am certain that JC is a natural euro sceptic but he made a poor miscalculation last year in coming out for remain, in part I believe because he believed - wrongly as it turns out - that doing so would unify the party behind him.

If it was up to him I'm convinced he would be pro Brexit but as his party has been hijacked by right wing blairites over the last 2 decades or so I have little faith in the Labour Party seeing Brexit through if elected.

I can't and won't vote Tory. I see no point in the lib dems and ukip are hateful.

I was of the opinion that I should "vote Tory this time to guarantee Brexit and go back to labour next time after we have left" but I don't think I can do it. I look at them and other than a few of them I see privileged selfish oafs who care not one jot about me and mine.

On a side note did you see QT last night? I now have a fairly enormous crush on Angela Rayner. And that Patel woman is a waste of a gorgeous face in a hateful mind.

I'm conflicted.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The current threshold is under £40k.

It's £23k. But it doesn't apply if you stay in your own home, since the value of your home didn't count previously. So you could have a £500k home and £20k in savings and still get free care at home. And then when you died, you'd get to leave all of the value of your home to your kids. (If you were a surviving spouse and benefitted from the full £650,000 inheritance tax allowance.)

Under May's proposals, the value of your home is used to pay for your care, even if you stay at home. If you end up with dementia and last 10 years (say) you could blow several hundred thousand on care costs, that previously you would not have been liable for. Effectively you could be subject to 100% inheritance tax.

Honestly, I think it's a really diabolical proposal. Her "solution" to the cost of care problem is "the state won't pay any more". What sort of solution is that???

It's flawed for three reasons:

1. What is the point of having a state welfare system AT ALL, if the state simply says "over to you"? We might as well disband the NHS and everything that goes with it and just have everyone rely on insurance-based schemes.

2. It effectively puts everyone in a lottery as to how much money they can leave their kids. Get "lucky" and die quickly and you are largely unaffected by these changes. But if you're unfortunate enough to contract a denegerative disease, you could see your life's saving eroded away, leaving your kids with nothing. This is clearly harsh at best, and arguably unfair. The point of a social welfare system is so that these pains and burdens are SHARED.

3. I've been paying 45% tax or more and maximum NI for for years. For whose benefit? Is it for my mother's care needs? Is that where my money is going? Or is it for my future care needs? If the former, then why should my mother have to pay for her care? I am paying for it. If it's the latter, why should I have to sell my home to pay for my care when the time comes? The government can't have it both ways. Either I am paying for me, or for someone else. They can't "bill" both of us for care costs after all the tax they've taken.

 

[mcfc1632]

I can't and won't vote Tory. I see no point in the lib dems and ukip are hateful.

I was of the opinion that I should "vote Tory this time to guarantee Brexit and go back to labour next time after we have left" but I don't think I can do it. I look at them and other than a few of them I see privileged selfish oafs who care not one jot about me and mine.

On a side note did you see QT last night? I now have a fairly enormous crush on Angela Rayner. And that Patel woman is a waste of a gorgeous face in a hateful mind.

I'm conflicted.

I think a lot of people will be conflicted and I can really see this election being the only 'one-off' that has ever happened (that may not be true - just my top of the head reckoning)

By one-off I mean that I can see people voting in a manner that they would not normally dream of.

You say:

"I was of the opinion that I should "vote Tory this time to guarantee Brexit and go back to labour next time after we have left"

and:

"but I don't think I can do it"

I can see a lot of people in traditional Labour stronghold seats finding that they can 'hold their nose' and do exactly that. The Electorate has moved increasingly towards wanting Brexit done and the Tories would clearly seem the only party that will definitely to that. Achieving Brexit is far too important to be left to chance and I think that we will see people will set aside principles as a 'one-off'.

There may also be some diehard Tory voters that voted Remain that now are willing to vote Labour or LibDem votes in Tory seats - but all the evidence is that this is a small issue compared to the Leave vote in Labour seats

I will watch QT on Iplayer to check out your assessment of the politician's credentials

 

[Len Rum]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

 

[CityStu]

I've understood it as if your assets and savings exceed £100k, you will be asked to pay. But then, once you've started to pay and your savings and asset values reduce to £100k or below, your care will start to be provided for by the state?

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

and if Labour had been re-elected?

 

[SWP's back]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

Deficit still falling Len?

Would be rising with the jokers you want in.

 

[SWP's back]

and if Labour had been re-elected?

There'd be another note in the Treasury saying "all the money has gone again"

 

[SWP's back]

It's £23k. But it doesn't apply if you stay in your own home, since the value of your home didn't count previously. So you could have a £500k home and £20k in savings and still get free care at home. And then when you died, you'd get to leave all of the value of your home to your kids. (If you were a surviving spouse and benefitted from the full £650,000 inheritance tax allowance.)

Under May's proposals, the value of your home is used to pay for your care, even if you stay at home. If you end up with dementia and last 10 years (say) you could blow several hundred thousand on care costs, that previously you would not have been liable for. Effectively you could be subject to 100% inheritance tax.

Honestly, I think it's a really diabolical proposal. Her "solution" to the cost of care problem is "the state won't pay any more". What sort of solution is that???

It's flawed for three reasons:

1. What is the point of having a state welfare system AT ALL, if the state simply says "over to you"? We might as well disband the NHS and everything that goes with it and just have everyone rely on insurance-based schemes.

2. It effectively puts everyone in a lottery as to how much money they can leave their kids. Get "lucky" and die quickly and you are largely unaffected by these changes. But if you're unfortunate enough to contract a denegerative disease, you could see your life's saving eroded away, leaving your kids with nothing. This is clearly harsh at best, and arguably unfair. The point of a social welfare system is so that these pains and burdens are SHARED.

3. I've been paying 45% tax or more and maximum NI for for years. For whose benefit? Is it for my mother's care needs? Is that where my money is going? Or is it for my future care needs? If the former, then why should my mother have to pay for her care? I am paying for it. If it's the latter, why should I have to sell my home to pay for my care when the time comes? The government can't have it both ways. Either I am paying for me, or for someone else. They can't "bill" both of us for care costs after all the tax they've taken.

I know what you're saying. It certainly is a very Red Tory proposal.

 

[Len Rum]

and if Labour had been re-elected?

Yes.
Alistair Darling had a good plan in 2010, more modest cuts than Osborne meaning no crash in 2012 and then deficit eliminated by 2017. Would have worked.
It was the crash and burn in 2012 Tories and then having to pump the patient full of steroids that ultimately led to today's problems.

 

[mcfc1632]

Conservative Manifesto 2010:
Deficit to be eliminated 2015.

Conservative Manifesto 2015:
Deficit to be eliminated 2017.

Speech by Osborne 2016:
Deficit to be eliminated 2020.

Conservative Manifesto 2017:
Deficit to be eliminated 2025.

If the original target had been met then the national debt would now be about 1.3 trillion and falling. Assuming they hit their latest target ( certainly not guaranteed) then by 2025 the national debt will probably hit two trillion.

The party of economic competence my arse.

All very factual points those IMO

People could debate about the size of the debt inherited - the manner in which so much was hidden and repayment is constrained through Brown's obsession with PFI etc. - but the fact is the Tories made predictions and have gotten them badly wrong - their reputation must as a consequence take a battering.

So if we agree on that - can you help me out with something that I am struggling to work out please

Given all this Tory incompetence etc. - just what does it say about the Labour party that they are still, seemingly by a very large majority, deemed to be far worse that the Tories with regard economic competence.

Oh and pretty please do so without doing some cut and paste of the Sun, Express or Mail - the board can only take so much of that crap