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.
hilts said:
As I have said in another thread happy clappers are of no use in any debate. Your opinions are set in stone, you will not change so why converse. This thread would have the same posters mainly as the last general election. We don't have a paralell universe to compare so none of us will ever be proven right.

If you look at the Iraq debacle and how the right slates Blair for it in what world can they get away with that shit? They do though. We have a policy from the Tories on social care which is a labour type policy all day long. What do labour do? Stick up for rich folk. Why? Just because the Tories came up with it. There are no winners here folks.
Click to expand...

There are no winners with this post. If there was a prize for incomprehensibility it would be a slam dunk.
 
hilts said:
The problem is the voters who have the power are doing fine so they won't gamble. Politically we are in a very strange place.
Click to expand...

Agree that we're in a bit of a strange place politically. Still can't foresee a Labour win, but at this stage anything less than a Tory landslide will be a blessing.
 
The latest couple of polls are around the 45%/35% mark, in the 100 seat majority territory. Both UKIP and the Lib Dems might as well give up.
 
Ric said:
That's a bit disingenuous.
Click to expand...
I still can't work it out.. I read if you happen to have profited from the system she said your last $100,000 won't be touched, but if you have been dealt a bad hand (a hand where you have less than £100k in assets or otherwise, then it gets picked up through tax. Where is the issue? .. This misinformation is a problem.
 
Ban-jani said:
He can vote for his conscience all he wants, he's still wrong.
Click to expand...
Almost 20 years of bombings.
Millions of innocent people dead as a result.
Iraq didn't work.
Afghanistan didn't work.
Libya really didn't work.
Syria isn't working
Yemen isn't working.
No WMD's still.
Millions of refugees.
A shift in Right wing politics.

And you say he's got it wrong?

Ok!
 
MellowJoe said:
I still can't work it out.. I read if you happen to have profited from the system she said your last $100,000 won't be touched, but if you have been dealt a bad hand (a hand where you have less than £100k in assets or otherwise, then it gets picked up through tax. Where is the issue? .. This misinformation is a problem.
Click to expand...

I imagine the problem for most is that it's a complete health lottery. Get diagnosed with cancer and you have your medical care covered, get diagnosed with Alzheimer's and it's tough shit - you pick up the bill.
 
cibaman said:
Corbyn's answers on Trident were bizarre. I can understand his opposition to it, I disagree with him but can see his point of view. But its been included as party policy in Labour's manifesto, which would seem to commit Labour to its renewal. But no, they're going to review it immediately after the election. So what's the point of including it in the manifesto? Its just completely disingenuous. "Here's our manifesto, but of course we can completely change it as soon as we're elected".

All governments break their election promises but I dont remember any party leader being quite so up front about it.
Click to expand...
He's being honest. I've never seen a leader gamble so much on honesty
 
Ric said:
I imagine the problem for most is that it's a complete health lottery. Get diagnosed with cancer and your have your medical care covered, get diagnosed with Alzheimer's and it's tough shit - you pick up the bill.
Click to expand...

Right, but we all know it's coming. It isn't like you can avoid Alzheimers.. and cancer is quite lottery-esque also, although of course we advise against certain habits.

Your response didn't help me understand why the proposal was bad. 'Those that can afford it (the 100,00 plusers) will pay' - this is how I read it. Can't see the problem... is it the threshold? should it be £500,000 untouched?
 
Ric said:
Have Labour ever advocated the same approach to social care?
Click to expand...

No but they advocate the richer you are the more you pay in general. The problem with their current wisdom if I have it right is that they will pump in a few billion quid. Like the restriction on working age it's the classic one term solution that makes the current system of politics unworkable.
 
Ric said:
I imagine the problem for most is that it's a complete health lottery. Get diagnosed with cancer and you have your medical care covered, get diagnosed with Alzheimer's and it's tough shit - you pick up the bill.
Click to expand...
My mum has bone marrow cancer and acute kidney failure. She was severely ill in hospital for 3 months then in rehabilitation for another 2 months. She tried to go back home with carers coming in 3 or 4 times a day to dress her, sort meals out and get her to bed but it wasn't working. She then went into residential care as she couldn't do much for herself bar stagger the few steps to the toilet. Most of her pension went toward paying for that, I think the council paid a bit, me and our kid paid about £130 a week between us and the council funded the rest on a deferred payment basis, to be repaid on the sale of her flat.

She then had a stroke about 3 months ago and obviously went back into hospital but wasn't in that long as fortunately the stroke was a very mild one. They wouldn't release her back into residential care so she had to go into nursing care, for which Bury CCG now pay most, with her pension covering the rest. A few doors away, my uncle has severe dementia, is bedridden and virtually a vegetable. He requires a very high degree of nursing care but my aunt has to pay for that. I don't understand why there should be a difference. Possibly it's to do with the assets they have but I don't know.
 
Last edited:
hilts said:
No but they advocate the richer you are the more you pay in general.
Click to expand...

That's quite different to what the Tories proposed regarding social care though. That was a very specific tax on certain types on illnesses.
 
hilts said:
So the problem is what is classed as social care not the policy itself
Click to expand...

I think you're detracting from your initial point here. When have Labour advocated a similar approach to social care as that proposed by May?
 
Ric said:
I think you're detracting from your initial point here. When have Labour advocated a similar approach to social care as that proposed by May?
Click to expand...

My point was that labour is more inclined to get people with more money to contribute more whereas Tories are of the opinion that money earned due to endeavour shouldn't be grabbed. It's more a basic ideology. I haven't said which is right but are you saying this basic principle is wrong?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top