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.
BlueHammer85 said:
Your point was if someone was sick and out of work - then lets hope they were 'smart' and took income protection or critical illness, in which case why have a NHS ? everyone can just be 'smart' and get various sickness,illness,critical covers
Click to expand...
And then we end up like the USA where you go bankrupt to fund treatment or die.
 
Prestwich_Blue said:
And then we end up like the USA where you go bankrupt to fund treatment or die.
Click to expand...
Colin, don't be an idiot. The policies I mention have fuck all to do with medical bills or funding treatment. You should realise that agreeing with that hammer is usually a good pointer that you're on dodgy ground.
 
Well worth watching Mavis's press conference this morning.
As she squirmed and struggled to justify her U turn on social policy the press started laughing at her.
She began to shout and became increasingly desperate.
When the questions moved away from the u turn, she couldn't get her words out properly to a question on Brexit.
Her credibility is now shot, her reputation in tatters.

WEAK AND WOBBLY.
 
mcfc1632 said:
Whilst I think that May has handled this social care policy awfully - it never needed to be brought into this manifesto - people forget what the Labour party is likely to do on inheritance and capital gains tax
Click to expand...
The reason, I believe, is because manifesto pledges that are then put into place once the winning party
gains power, can not be rejected by the Lords, whilst policies formed in government that were not manifesto based
are subject to endless scrutiny, which we've seen lately.
Prior to this announcement the starting point for payments for care costs were around £23,000, I've not checked, but they
probably still are. I have personal, and distressing, experience of this whole process, in that my mother, who suffered from
vascular dementia, had to live with me,who was then working, and was cared for by my wife, who was not, and still isn't,
in the best of health. This happened over a period of 3 years, until, doubly incontinent, raving and suffering intense distress,
she had to go into a care home. All her, and my late father's money, around £50,000, was quickly used up, then I was contacted
by the care home and council about any other assets, so her bungalow, worth £165,000 at the time was put up for sale.
Knowing this would happen, I had managed to arrange a 'Deed of variation' a complicated procedure that effectively gave me 50%
of the house, so this was safe, but the other half quickly went.
So, in essence, if you're in a care home, your assets will get used to fund it, the Tories proposition, however, would mean you
get to keep £100,000 of those assets.
It's been badly presented though, but if anyone can tell me what Labour proposes, or how it will find funding for this,
I'd be interested.
 
Len Rum said:
Well worth watching Mavis's press conference this morning.
As she squirmed and struggled to justify her U turn on social policy the press started laughing at her.
She began to shout and became increasingly desperate.
When the questions moved away from the u turn, she couldn't get her words out properly to a question on Brexit.
Her credibility is now shot, her reputation in tatters.

WEAK AND WOBBLY.
Click to expand...

Correct, but the frightening thing is that she will still be elected.
 
SWP's back said:
Any work is always good I found. A couple of earned quid in the pocket does far more for self esteem than wasting away at home.

Has she tried looking for work in pubs and restaurants or doesn't that interest her?
Click to expand...
She's willing to do anything as she wants to work. Being unemployed make her feel like a stigma. I will ask in my locals if there's vacancies.
 
Ancient Citizen said:
The reason, I believe, is because manifesto pledges that are then put into place once the winning party
gains power, can not be rejected by the Lords, whilst policies formed in government that were not manifesto based
are subject to endless scrutiny, which we've seen lately.
Prior to this announcement the starting point for payments for care costs were around £23,000, I've not checked, but they
probably still are. I have personal, and distressing, experience of this whole process, in that my mother, who suffered from
vascular dementia, had to live with me,who was then working, and was cared for by my wife, who was not, and still isn't,
in the best of health. This happened over a period of 3 years, until, doubly incontinent, raving and suffering intense distress,
she had to go into a care home. All her, and my late father's money, around £50,000, was quickly used up, then I was contacted
by the care home and council about any other assets, so her bungalow, worth £165,000 at the time was put up for sale.
Knowing this would happen, I had managed to arrange a 'Deed of variation' a complicated procedure that effectively gave me 50%
of the house, so this was safe, but the other half quickly went.
So, in essence, if you're in a care home, your assets will get used to fund it, the Tories proposition, however, would mean you
get to keep £100,000 of those assets.
It's been badly presented though, but if anyone can tell me what Labour proposes, or how it will find funding for this,
I'd be interested.
Click to expand...
Colin posted it before.

There will be a new wealth tax.
 
So May announces her death tax on late last week - on Peston on Sunday Nicholas Soames and Bois were interviewed and it became clear she hadn't consulted her cabinet prior to it making it to the published manifesto - Soames in particular was keen to stress he saw it as a frame work document on which consultation was needed to structure the correct way forward after they were re-elected and today May announces changes which " were no enforced and are not a u-turn". Making it up on the hoof - remind me one side is strong and stable the other is chaotic - which ones is it again coz its starting to look a lot like Tory
 
Ancient Citizen said:
The reason, I believe, is because manifesto pledges that are then put into place once the winning party
gains power, can not be rejected by the Lords, whilst policies formed in government that were not manifesto based
are subject to endless scrutiny, which we've seen lately.
Prior to this announcement the starting point for payments for care costs were around £23,000, I've not checked, but they
probably still are. I have personal, and distressing, experience of this whole process, in that my mother, who suffered from
vascular dementia, had to live with me,who was then working, and was cared for by my wife, who was not, and still isn't,
in the best of health. This happened over a period of 3 years, until, doubly incontinent, raving and suffering intense distress,
she had to go into a care home. All her, and my late father's money, around £50,000, was quickly used up, then I was contacted
by the care home and council about any other assets, so her bungalow, worth £165,000 at the time was put up for sale.
Knowing this would happen, I had managed to arrange a 'Deed of variation' a complicated procedure that effectively gave me 50%
of the house, so this was safe, but the other half quickly went.
So, in essence, if you're in a care home, your assets will get used to fund it, the Tories proposition, however, would mean you
get to keep £100,000 of those assets.
It's been badly presented though, but if anyone can tell me what Labour proposes, or how it will find funding for this,
I'd be interested.
Click to expand...

I think she probably always intended to have a cap but didnt want it restricted to the proposed £72k. Rather than specify an increased amount she took it out of her manifesto hoping that it wouldnt be noticed.

I hope she does better in the brexit negotiations.
 
KenTheLandlord said:
Do you not think there was communication with the Germans during the war? Very odd if you dont.
There is no doubt Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi should be removed from public life, it seems has will be soon anyhow, which will be good news.
From air bombing the middle East from the thirties and overturning governments in the middle East years before ISIS, most people would work out they are there because the environment for it to feed on has been facilitated by the west. Not just me and Corbyn would think that.
May or may not happen, who knows.
Click to expand...

Of course there will of been communication but what achieved more, a bit of a chat or a military European deployment with the Americans that liberated a continent. Bit of an extreme example but still it is an example of where pacifism can simply have no place.

Had we negotiated with the IRA and republicans instead we would probably have lost NI or come to some sort of agreement which violated the right for the Northern Irish to self determine. Had we negotiated with Argentina we would probably of ended up losing the Falklands and we would probably end up losing Gibraltar when Spain shouts at us again in the future. All sounds extreme again but if you aren't willing to defend yourself and are more than willing to negotiate with nutcases then hell why not?
 
Ancient Citizen said:
I'm afraid you have (deliberately?) missed the point. Corbyn was and is, an IRA supporter, a united Ireland for him,
meant IRA victory, not dialogue with all sides bringing it about, the IRA obtaining it by mayhem and murder.
Click to expand...

You reckon we'd have the Northern Ireland Assembly without all that mayhem and murder?
 
What happened to all the competent people? I swear it's a fucking circus these days. I wouldn't trust any of these twats to plan a birthday party, yet alone run the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top