General Election - 8th June.

gloswhite wrote:I'm so pissed off with the Tories limiting a life's worth of savings of £100k to you, and the rest to them, that I might actually not vote, (first time ever), or even vote UKIP, although I'm hearing 'consultation' more and more, but this makes no difference, as it won't happen until after the election. 
Makes me wonder if that £100k is limited to the individual, or to the property, especially as my house is registered as 'Tenants in Common'.

May most have heard you Glos - seems that a U-turn on this is happening -

General election: Theresa May changes social care plans

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40001221

Analysis
By Health Correspondent Nick Triggle
This represents a complete U-turn. The cap - a 2015 election promise - was ditched last week with the Tories briefing it would be too expensive because of the ageing population.
Instead they wanted to set a "floor" in England - hence guaranteeing everyone in England would be able to keep £100,000.
But after a weekend of damaging headlines, there has clearly been a re-think. Merging together two policies may prove difficult however.
What they proposed in the manifesto in regards to including the value of a person's home was not in the original proposals for a cap. Are the two things compatible?
What about the level of the cap - set at £72,000 last time? And where will the money come from? The cost was estimated at £6bn over five years. These, the Tories say, are all questions for another day.

xmiles wrote:

wanderlust wrote:

gloswhite wrote:I'm so pissed off with the Tories limiting a life's worth of savings of £100k to you, and the rest to them, that I might actually not vote, (first time ever), or even vote UKIP, although I'm hearing 'consultation' more and more, but this makes no difference, as it won't happen until after the election. 
Makes me wonder if that £100k is limited to the individual, or to the property, especially as my house is registered as 'Tenants in Common'.

If you are legally related to the other "tenants" e.g. it's your partner/missus then I believe they have legal claim. If not, they have legal claim over your share.
It's a seriously messy proposal, badly thought through.

If you are tenants in common you each own half a share of the property outright and your partner/spouse has no legal entitlement. One consequence is that half a house is worth very little so if your partner is still alive and living in the property I think the government will have no legal claim on the property even after the death of the first partner/spouse. Mind you I wouldn't trust those Tory bastards not to change the law to suit themselves.

XM, my understanding is that the provider will have a claim on half of the property, but due to the problems involved, they never do. (how can you sell half a house, with a sitting owner/tenant?). Thats how it was put to us by our legal adviser. However, I know of somebody in London who was going to buy half a house, (he didn't go ahead with it).
As you say, if there is money in it, some bugger will find a way of getting it.

And another thing. will this stealth tax apply only to people who are over the state retirement age (which is constantly being pushed back, and so losing even more money.), or will it apply to anyone who receives care at home, and are in possession of their own home (mortgaged or otherwise)? 

And no, I wouldn't vote for UKIP, they're a spent force now

Anybody else seen the pop up ads from the Tories on YouTube?

Fuck me....talk about distilling down xenophobic fears about foreigners / Muslims into handy, bite-sized UKIP-voter friendly packages for maximum effect.....

I tell you, we're one step away from the fuckers posting pictures of dead babies and screaming: "If you vote Labour, this is what'll happen !!!"

Wankers.

The Tories will win by a mile but it's encouraging to see it isn't quite the stroll in the park they expected so my question is that if May claims that the purpose of the election is to give her a bigger majority and therefore a mandate to push through a hard Brexit, then if the Tory majority is actually reduced, does that mean she recognises that she has no mandate?
I guess it doesn't matter because she'd only do yet another U-turn - and get away with it.

Jeremy Kyle tends to court controversy so his pitch on the radio today was that the Manchester bombing has favoured the Tories.

Last week the country was discussing the dementia tax, the U turn that followed it, the NHS, and all the issues that the Tories were losing ground and votes on. 

Although still expected to win comfortably, the Tories' lead was dropping away according to the latest polls. Suddenly "politics" is taboo and all the momentum gained by the opposition parties has evaporated.

This elicited several calls and messages suggesting that if the Tories hadn't cut the police force by 20,000 perhaps the bombing might have been averted and that the Tories must bear some of the responsibility.

Kyle countered by saying that the Tories have justified their cuts in police funding by citing statistics that show that crime has gone down with every cut in the police force they have made.

Caller then argued that it is recorded crime  (as opposed to actual crime) that has gone down - which is not surprising if there are 20,000 less policemen to record it!

If the average policeman records say 5 crimes a day, that's 100,000 less crimes reported every day - plus potentially another 100,000 who would be less inclined to report future crimes if their query wasn't dealt with.

Personally I can't decide if extra anti-terrorist police might have been able to detect the perpetrator before the incident or if extra bobbies on the beat might have been able to spot the bomber and better protect the public but what I do know is that today we have the armed forces on the streets and on trains - doing the job that many of the sacked policemen could have been doing all along.

Fuck off wanderlust, shame on you for using the bombing to bash the Tories.

Natasha Whittam wrote:Fuck off wanderlust, shame on you for using the bombing to bash the Tories.

Clue: I am not Jeremy Kyle.
Or the BBC and ITV news which also reported this last night.

When i heard the Tory social care plan i instantly thought U turn coming soon.

This from a party who peddle the strong & stable mantra, this means that a room full of the so called most able of the Tory party agreed this awful policy and they all signed it off.

This means collective incompetence, OR Maggie May decided this on her own and over ruled her cabinet, meaning the woman is not fit for office and anything but stable. 

Every time she is under pressure she wilts, and this government despite having little opposition continues to make errors in judgement.

I am not a JC fan, but i am a Labour member, however he seems to have struck an accord with this manifesto and is performing well much better than i thought he would. If the gap continues to close you will see some very dirty and negative Tory tactics in the next 10 days.

Tory tactics already largely focus on personal abuse. They always accuse the Labour party of not having properly costed their proposals but never offer any figures on their own proposals. Look at how May squirmed and refused to answer a simple question about how they were going to fund the extra £8billion for the NHS. Or the refusal to say what the cap on social care or the limit for winter fuel allowance is going to be.

wessy wrote:When i heard the Tory social care plan i instantly thought U turn coming soon.

This from a party who peddle the strong & stable mantra, this means that a room full of the so called most able of the Tory party agreed this awful policy and they all signed it off.

This means collective incompetence, OR Maggie May decided this on her own and over ruled her cabinet, meaning the woman is not fit for office and anything but stable. 

Every time she is under pressure she wilts, and this government despite having little opposition continues to make errors in judgement.

Ha ha, absolutely laughable.

You criticised the original plan, the Tories changed their minds, and you're now abusing them for making a U-turn!

Proof, as if we needed it, that the Tories could create world peace and make everyone rich and you'd still find a way to moan.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

wessy wrote:When i heard the Tory social care plan i instantly thought U turn coming soon.

This from a party who peddle the strong & stable mantra, this means that a room full of the so called most able of the Tory party agreed this awful policy and they all signed it off.

This means collective incompetence, OR Maggie May decided this on her own and over ruled her cabinet, meaning the woman is not fit for office and anything but stable. 

Every time she is under pressure she wilts, and this government despite having little opposition continues to make errors in judgement.

Ha ha, absolutely laughable.

You criticised the original plan, the Tories changed their minds, and you're now abusing them for making a U-turn!

Proof, as if we needed it, that the Tories could create world peace and make everyone rich and you'd still find a way to moan.

Its a pity your so thick Nat, I am against the original plan because it's a bad policy, i accuse them of doing a u turn because that's what they did, BUT to make it worse May lied that this was not a U turn despite it being in the Tory manifesto that no cap would be applied.

They have not costed any part of the manifesto and expect people to accept that the figures will be announced after the election after consultation What a crock of shit, how about discussing and costing it then calling an election.

As for the Tories creating world peace now that is laughable this is and always as been the NASTY party. they got that name for a reason, Compassion is not a quality associated with conservatism.

wessy wrote:
As for the Tories creating world peace now that is laughable this is and always as been the NASTY party.

I seem to remember it was Labour that took us to war. But, of course, you won't mention that.

By the way, did you see your leader on TV today? Another Labour bigwig who seems utterly clueless with figures.

The Tories always attack Labour with the charge that their proposals are not properly costed and yet they never provide any figures for their own proposals. Where is the extra £8billion for the NHS coming from? What is the cap on social care costs? At what level will the winter fuel allowance be withdrawn?

Theresa May bottles another TV debate.

Wouldn't want to be asked any awkward questions in order to retain the illusion that she's a "strong leader". Perhaps that puts the Chuckle Brothers in with a shout for a late bid to lead the country as they are not answering any questions either?

That said, with the Tories on course to increase their majority to over 115 it makes sense to say and do nothing as the Tories know that she would only lose votes if she was ever put on the spot about their record and their proposed cutting of services in a situation that isn't completely managed by their media team.

wanderlust wrote:Theresa May bottles another TV debate.

Wouldn't want to be asked any awkward questions in order to retain the illusion that she's a "strong leader". Perhaps that puts the Chuckle Brothers in with a shout for a late bid to lead the country as they are not answering any questions either?

That said, with the Tories on course to increase their majority to over 115 it makes sense to say and do nothing as the Tories know that she would only lose votes if she was ever put on the spot about their record and their proposed cutting of services in a situation that isn't completely managed by their media team.

You've just contradicted yourself. Is she a bottler or sensible, make your mind up.

And I notice you posted this minutes after Jeremy finally decided to take part - do you think his gaff yesterday made his mind up for him?

Labour has everything to gain from the debate and not much to lose. The Tories the exact opposite.

According to the Times the Tories could lose 20 seats and Labour gain 30 seats causing a hung Parliament. It's based on YouGov polls who interviewed 50,000 people in a week.

I know polls aren't always accurate, especially after Brexit but here's hoping.

Norpig wrote:According to the Times the Tories could lose 20 seats and Labour gain 30 seats causing a hung Parliament. It's based on YouGov polls who interviewed 50,000 people in a week.

I know polls aren't always accurate, especially after Brexit but here's hoping.

Just for clarity - YouGov - although it sounds like it - has nothing at all to do with the Government in any way, shape or form.

It is a privately owned market research company and nothing to do with the public sector.

For what it is worth they got the outcome of the GE15 (General Election in 2015) wrong...

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/12/07/analysis-what-went-wrong-our-ge15-polling-and-what/

...and also predicted a win for 'Remain' last year -

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/yougov-day-poll/

They may well get it right this time but their record so far is none out of two!