General Election June 8th

Who will you vote for at the General Election?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 189 28.8%

  • Labour

    Votes: 366 55.8%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 37 5.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 8 1.2%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 23 3.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 33 5.0%
  • Total voters
    656
Status
Not open for further replies.
sir baconface said:
We don't often agree on here but that's a disgrace. If your grandparents had pissed their lives away, they'd have paid nothing.

As I read the current situation, you can pass a £425k estate on without incurring a penny of Inheritance Tax. Double that to £850k for a married couple. But if one of you is stricken by dementia, that same estate could get robbed of £750k. In effect they've simultaneously ramped up death tax on the poorly while reducing it for the healthy.

How the fcuk is this "Tories moving to the left"? It stinks and I'm amazed there hasn't been a bigger backlash.

Anyway, they have lost my vote. That'll teach the bastards.
Click to expand...

Agree with every word.

This is what I said in my letter to my MP yesterday:

"Dear Luke,

I want to register my vehement opposition to the outrageous proposals on care costs in your manifesto.

For years, the Conservatives rightly have been trying to increase the inheritance tax allowance so that decent honest working people can go to their graves safe in the knowledge they are leaving something behind for their children. But what on earth is the point of inheritance tax allowance increases, if all your savings (bar £100,000) end up being wiped out on care costs? This proposal makes a mockery of the inheritance tax improvements.

Theresa May’s “solution” to the care cost dilemma is to say, “we’re not paying anymore - you’ll have to”. This is NOT a solution, it’s a bloody disgrace and I am absolutely furious about it. It means elderly people will face a lottery as to whether they have anything left to leave their children and may end up “hoping” they die quickly and cheaply. What a shocking position to put people in.

I’ve voted Tory at every single election since I was first eligible to vote in the 1970’s, but as a result of this manifesto proposal, I cannot and will not vote for you. If Labour had a credible leader I would certainly vote for them, but as it stands I am in a real dilemma. I may still end up voting for Jeremy Corbyn and since I am a passionate life-long Tory, I hope that makes you realise how strongly I - and indeed many other people I have spoken to - feel about this.

I hope you will urge your party leadership to reconsider these unfair proposals and that these terrible changes never come to pass.

Yours sincerely"

PS, there's no way I am voting for Corbyn, but I didn't think my MP needed to know that.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Agree with every word.

This is what I said in my letter to my MP yesterday:

"Dear Luke,

I want to register my vehement opposition to the outrageous proposals on care costs in your manifesto.

For years, the Conservatives rightly have been trying to increase the inheritance tax allowance so that decent honest working people can go to their graves safe in the knowledge they are leaving something behind for their children. But what on earth is the point of inheritance tax allowance increases, if all your savings (bar £100,000) end up being wiped out on care costs? This proposal makes a mockery of the inheritance tax improvements.

Theresa May’s “solution” to the care cost dilemma is to say, “we’re not paying anymore - you’ll have to”. This is NOT a solution, it’s a bloody disgrace and I am absolutely furious about it. It means elderly people will face a lottery as to whether they have anything left to leave their children and may end up “hoping” they die quickly and cheaply. What a shocking position to put people in.

I’ve voted Tory at every single election since I was first eligible to vote in the 1970’s, but as a result of this manifesto proposal, I cannot and will not vote for you. If Labour had a credible leader I would certainly vote for them, but as it stands I am in a real dilemma. I may still end up voting for Jeremy Corbyn and since I am a passionate life-long Tory, I hope that makes you realise how strongly I - and indeed many other people I have spoken to - feel about this.

I hope you will urge your party leadership to reconsider these unfair proposals and that these terrible changes never come to pass.

Yours sincerely"

PS, there's no way I am voting for Corbyn, but I didn't think my MP needed to know that.
Click to expand...
We (the British) need to realign our thinking to include that basically, we have to pay for ourselves throughout our lives. We can get some support if it's needed toward the end, but our basic mind set about living in a half a million pound houses and getting free services, which incidentally are not without cost, someone somewhere has to pay, needs to change.

It's harsh to contemplate but aside from slashing foreign aid, which I'd support and reinvesting the money we won't be sending across the channel, where is this money going to come from?

It's not unreasonable if, like me and my wife, you live in a very nice house and we need homecare at a later stage we should contribute - what god given right have we to assume that the younger tax payers who can't afford their own homes should pay? They're already trying to pay for the health service, the education services and law and order.

If I end up leaving my children 100k which meant I'd have had a great last five years then.... what's the problem?
 
Last edited:
BigJoe#1 said:
We (the British) need to realign our thinking to include that basically, we have to pay for ourselves throughout our lives. We can get some support if it's needed toward the end, but our basic mind set about living in a half a million pound houses and getting free services, which incidentally are not without cost, someone somewhere has to pay, needs to change.

It's harsh to contemplate but aside from slashing foreign aid, which I'd support and reinvesting the money we won't be sending across the channel, where is this money going to come from?

It's not unreasonable if, like me and my wife, you live in a very nice house and we need homecare at a later stage we should contribute - what god given right have we to assume that the younger tax payers who can't afford their own homes should pay? They're already trying to pay for the health service, the education services and law and order.

If I end up leaving my children 100k which meant I'd have had a great last five years then.... what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Why not do away with the NHS as well? Make anyone earning over say £80,000 a year, pay for their medical costs?

Most people would think that outrageous, would they not. But it's the same thing.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
We (the British) need to realign our thinking to include that basically, we have to pay for ourselves throughout our lives. We can get some support if it's needed toward the end, but our basic mind set about living in a half a million pound houses and getting free services, which incidentally are not without cost, someone somewhere has to pay, needs to change.
Click to expand...
But you have paid. It's called taxation and NI and it's supposed to be used to provide services to the public. That half a million pound house has been bought after you've paid that tax & NI so you're actually being taxed twice.

And it isn't free now. My mum's been in a care home for about 2 years now and up to a couple of months ago was in residential rather than nursing care. She's not wealthy by any means. State plus small private pension, a few thousand (<£10k) saved and a nice flat probably worth about £275k.

When she was in residential care her pension, bar £25 a week, went towards the fees, the council pay a large part but some or all of that will be recovered when the flat is sold. Me and our kid have to pay the rest, which was £130 a week between us. The flat is rented out at the moment because if she sold it, she'd be classed as self-funding and have to pay everything herself until she was down to her last £8k.

Sadly her health has deteriorated significantly and, after suffering a stroke, she had to go into nursing rather than residential care. Financially that's much better for us as the council pays the bulk, with her pension meeting the rest. So me & our kid are now relieved of the burden of the £300 a month we were each paying.

And let's not forget that in 2015 there was a Tory manifesto commitment to cap care costs at £70k. Which they ditched as soon as Cameron was safely back in Number 10.
 
BigJoe#1 said:
We (the British) need to realign our thinking to include that basically, we have to pay for ourselves throughout our lives. We can get some support if it's needed toward the end, but our basic mind set about living in a half a million pound houses and getting free services, which incidentally are not without cost, someone somewhere has to pay, needs to change.

It's harsh to contemplate but aside from slashing foreign aid, which I'd support and reinvesting the money we won't be sending across the channel, where is this money going to come from?

It's not unreasonable if, like me and my wife, you live in a very nice house and we need homecare at a later stage we should contribute - what god given right have we to assume that the younger tax payers who can't afford their own homes should pay? They're already trying to pay for the health service, the education services and law and order.

If I end up leaving my children 100k which meant I'd have had a great last five years then.... what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Here's the problem, mate:

a) The goal posts have suddenly shifted, giving people little or no opportunity to plan.
b) It means a death tax lottery: anything from zero to 100% depending which condition you suffer/don't suffer.
c) To compound that, mainstream inheritance tax relief has just been boosted by £100k. How much did that cost and where's the joined-up thinking?
d) It discriminates between mental and physical illness in a year when the spotlight is finally falling on the former.
e) It penalises those who have been prudent and ring fences those who haven't. Message?
f) It's one step from this to means testing other stuff. How's about charging anyone with a £100k house for their cancer drugs, anyone?
g) Unintended consequences like "spend, spend, spend" or a mysterious increase in "assisted suicides".
h) It breaks the implicit contract that people paid tax and NIC over their lifetimes to provide safeguards in illness and old age.

And that's just off the top of my head.

I fully agree that mind-sets need to change on funding future liabilities. Maybe that means more of the burden being borne by high net worth individuals through income tax/wealth tax/council tax, or a bit more by everyone across the board through income tax or VAT, or the creation of properly regulated new insurance products, or a reduction in foreign aid, or some combination. Certainly some long term, strategic thinking is in order What it doesn't need is knee-jerk shite that penalises people retrospectively for circumstances beyond their control.

Unless, as I say, we want to charge everyone for ALL services according to their means.....
 
Last edited:
I can't profess to know much about politics, but if the liberal democrats were to legalise cannabis then they would get my vote.
 
sir baconface said:
Indeed. Without doubt, that is the most pressing issue facing the UK over the next five years.
Click to expand...

From my selfish perspective, the legalisation of cannabis in the UK is of high priority. It has done wonders for my learning difficulties and mental health problems in the past.
 
Chippy_boy said:
You have no idea what I do and do not understand.

The point is not to what degree this is technically possible (we might not be able to eliminate it, but we could make it "more difficult" as the quote suggests). It is that the Tory's aspirations are perfectly reasonable in this respect, whereas you chose to misquote them in order to try to suggest they were going to do something completely unreasonable. Given the rest of your posts on this thread, that's not surprising I guess.
Click to expand...

I have every idea what you understand because you're displaying it.

This is in no way possible, reasonable, or achievable. Anybody who thinks it is is either lying or 100% does not understand this issue.
 
Starting to get interesting this from an 'outsiders' perspective.
I'm in no way suggesting the Tories won't get back in but there seems to be an acknowledgement from their support that May is running an awful campaign.
I'd be interested to know if Corbyn's social media campaign to get the youth to register is having a impact and if enough conservative voters will stay at home due to apathy with a weak conservative campaign.
I have to say that any 'leftish' Lib Dem types should really be looking at Labour now as they look more and more irrelevant.
I still reckon that enough working class former UKIP voters will
still go to the Tories to comfortably get them over the line.
 
Damocles said:
I have every idea what you understand because you're displaying it.

This is in no way possible, reasonable, or achievable. Anybody who thinks it is is either lying or 100% does not understand this issue.
Click to expand...

Total rubbish. But as I say, this is about your trying to paint the Tories is as bad a light as possible, irrespective of what has been said or proposed. Not about my knowledge of ISP filtering and content blocking.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Your selective memory recalls a few bad instances as the whole of a decade. There wasn't rubbish lying around the streets for 10 years the 3 day week was about 3 months in 1974 and I recall the blackouts were similar periods and the number of days lost to strikes doubled in 2012 compared with previous years - oh and the 70's were equally split 5 years each Tory and Labour govts but keep peddling the propaganda eh? How old were you in the 70's? I ask because I was 10 to 20 so lived through them and experienced them 1st hand not via Wikipedia and what the telegraph says
Click to expand...
I was 13 - 23 and I remember the strength of the unions - and I also remember being called out on strike for utterly pathetic reasons - I would not want any return to those days.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And this is the government that doesn't appear to understand the concept of end-to-end encryption.
Click to expand...

That's also not the point. The aims are it would seem, to make it more difficult for children to access inappropriate material. The manifesto doesn't say to make it impossible, merely that there should be more difficult. Like the rather feeble attempts at stopping people accessing torrent sites. It may be easy to get around, but they've put at least some obstacles in place.

Anyway, as I say, it's not the point. Personally I think it's a stupid idea for the reasons Damocles suggests. I just think his deliberately changing the Tories' quote (missing out the word "children") to suit his political agenda was not on, and that's what I hauled him up over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top