General Election Discussion - before and after the event

candyfloss wrote:It won't be free no matter who is in power, we are taxed to death until we drop, and then we are taxed some more!!

Hark at the signs going up around London


Susie Stewart‏ @susiepip · 31m31 minutes ago
 
People are putting up 'Strong and stable my arse' signs up across London

Is there a strong stable big enough for Thearse?

Seriously, I think the tide is turning. Corbyn is coming to Hull tomorrow I hope we do him proud. Need to make this sort of noise:

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/800053/Labour-Jeremy-Corbyn-Diane-Abbott-John-McDonnell-General-Election-2017




17 days ago
Wontbefooledagain
im not sure if sinister really does it justice - these three are just plain evil - they despise their country - despise the British people - they have supported and gloried our enemies - evil terrorists who have murdered Brits in cold blood are praised as "friends" by Corbyn and his gang - they lie through their teeth about their unfunded promises - they make up numbers on the fly - just listen to this dim witted Abbot woman on the Police funding interview - she is so thick it is a wonder she can find her way to the bathroom and this is supposed to be our shadow Home Secretary? - if Labour ever got their hands on power they would systematically destroy the economy and the livelihood of every hard working family in this great country - wealth would be confiscated - hard working people would be ruined - the currency would be debased by out of control borrowing - taxes would go through the roof. Of course there would be winners - the scroungers and workshy would have a field day as would every terrorist lover and open border fanatic - our great country would be flooded (even more than it was by Blair and his gang) by millions of unskilled unemployable immigrants and they would be actively encouraged not to integrate and to distain British culture - a vote for this labour gang is a vote to destroy the wealth of your nation, to destroy your economy, to condemn your offspring to poverty, to destroy the very fabric of your country - just look at Venezuela once one of the richest oil producing nations on earth now reduced to a horror movie where people fight for scraps of food out of garbage bins - the hard left zealots who bought about this catastrophe are admired role models for Corbyn and his gang of madmen - seeing so clearly the chaos and impoverishment to which Corbyns brand of hard left Marxist politics always leads - it is hard to believe that any sane person would vote for this evil trio

Apart from the Diane Abbott bit I disagree.  You would rather have this then..

The Independent Tech




Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online.

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.

"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet," it states. "We disagree."

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online.

The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims.

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read.

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned.



Tory manifesto an 'absolute car crash for environment'

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published, the manifesto suggests.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/theresa-may-internet-conservatives-government-a7744176.html

Saw this on twitter...



http://wideshut.co.uk/snoopers-charter-uk-most-spied-democracy/

Freedom wrote:My son was telling me about that yesterday. He was until then thinking of voting Tory!

You're lucky he's thinking that way Freedom - he could have thought of popping you off before it became law just in case you were to otherwise need care in the future!

We have a wonderful choice down this way,either a bloody tory or numbnut Havrvey,don't vote it only encourages them if you do.

Heisenburg wrote:We have a wonderful choice down this way,either a bloody tory or  numbnut Havrvey,don't vote it only encourages them if you do.

Heisenburg, if you really cant bring yourself to vote, please go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper - write a message on the paper saying why you cannot vote for any candidate. Spoilt votes are officially counted and published which sends a message. Candidates agents etc see the spoilt ballots as part of the process and have the right to challenge the presiding officer as to whether the vote is valid or not - so these people see the comments written (as of course do the counters) and a message is given.

Well the Tories ain't budging on the Care costs........





General election 2017: Tories 'won't look again' at social care plans

• 1 hour ago
  

Damian Green has said the Conservatives will not "look again" at plans to fund social care in England, despite fears they will be unpopular with voters.
The Tory manifesto says elderly people needing care at home would have to meet the costs but could keep £100,000 after the bill is deducted from their estate.
The work and pensions secretary told the BBC it would still be "a reasonable inheritance" to pass on to dependants.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/39990986




One has to ask the question then..

what is the point of buying your home - why not rent and getting everything paid for you.  Why should you struggle to pay mortgages and maintenance costs when renting includes all that., and then when you get old everything is paid for you and you are even given benefits.    This is of course why everyone was encouraged to buy back in the 80's - council houses were sold at minimum costs, now we know why.  So they think £100,000 is ok to leave your family no matter how big your house.  Wonder how some of the rich and elite are going to get round this then.

Winslow Boy wrote:


http://www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/leo-mckinstry/800053/Labour-Jeremy-Corbyn-Diane-Abbott-John-McDonnell-General-Election-2017




17 days ago
Wontbefooledagain
im not sure if sinister really does it justice - these three are just plain evil - they despise their country - despise the British people - they have supported and gloried our enemies - evil terrorists who have murdered Brits in cold blood are praised as "friends" by Corbyn and his gang - they lie through their teeth about their unfunded promises - they make up numbers on the fly - just listen to this dim witted Abbot woman on the Police funding interview - she is so thick it is a wonder she can find her way to the bathroom and this is supposed to be our shadow Home Secretary? - if Labour ever got their hands on power they would systematically destroy the economy and the livelihood of every hard working family in this great country - wealth would be confiscated - hard working people would be ruined - the currency would be debased by out of control borrowing - taxes would go through the roof. Of course there would be winners - the scroungers and workshy would have a field day as would every terrorist lover and open border fanatic - our great country would be flooded (even more than it was by Blair and his gang) by millions of unskilled unemployable immigrants and they would be actively encouraged not to integrate and to distain British culture - a vote for this labour gang is a vote to destroy the wealth of your nation, to destroy your economy, to condemn your offspring to poverty, to destroy the very fabric of your country - just look at Venezuela once one of the richest oil producing nations on earth now reduced to a horror movie where people fight for scraps of food out of garbage bins - the hard left zealots who bought about this catastrophe are admired role models for Corbyn and his gang of madmen - seeing so clearly the chaos and impoverishment to which  Corbyns brand of hard left Marxist politics always leads - it is hard to believe that any sane person would vote for this evil trio

Yep, they're terrified all right, Winslow! I doubt I've ever read such an ill-informed poorly-researched attempt to discredit the Labour leadership and it's a measure of Tory trepidation that they're allowing such vitriol to remain as their voice. 

9 point lead only now with over a fortnight to go. Their lead more than halved in the previous fortnight. People can see through soundbites and propaganda. The electorate can read and assess for themselves. No wonder the Cons are worried.

Gotta laugh at Winslow Boy article quote.. what a pile of dung that is.  This in particular is the pièce de résistance


snipped
wealth would be confiscated - hard working people would be ruined


As I said earlier, that is exactly what they are proposing, hard working people who paid NI all their lives and were taxed on everything, are then expected to give up their homes which some struggled hard to pay off, hoping to leave something to their kids and then to have that taken off them.  WTF, Damien Green thinks £100,000 is a big enough inheritance to leave.  I am gobsmacked.......... what is the point of working hard then?

Antonia wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:We have a wonderful choice down this way,either a bloody tory or  numbnut Havrvey,don't vote it only encourages them if you do.

Heisenburg, if you really cant bring yourself to vote, please go to the polling station and spoil your ballot paper - write a message on the paper saying why you cannot vote for any candidate. Spoilt votes are officially counted and published which sends a message. Candidates agents etc see the spoilt ballots as part of the process and have the right to challenge the presiding officer as to whether the vote is valid or not - so these people see the comments written (as of course do the counters) and a message is given.

Oh I'll vote,if only to try and stop May from having too big a majority,I hope it backfires on her and she ends up with less of a majority.

candyfloss wrote:Well the Tories ain't budging on the Care costs...



.

Hmmm,they budged on the NI business for the self employed.

Oh dear not going so well for TM.....

My confusion over the `dementia tax` has been clarified. There was a discussion about it on The World Tonight.

I was right after all - it is going to be better for all because now people will be left with £100,000 instead of £23,000. And £100,000 is a substantial amount for anyone`s kids to inherit.

And having dementia makes no difference - no matter how long you are ill for, even if you are in a care home for 10 years or more, you will still be allowed to retain £100,000.

I still maintain the winter fuel allowance should be mean tested - it`s such a waste of tax payer`s money to hand over hundreds of pounds to individuals who don`t need it. I`ve heard wealthy pensioners joke about it paying for their more extravagant unnecessaries.

Not quite Mimi.  Presently it is only savings that were taken into account for care and help in the home.  Now your house will be too, so that if it all amounts to over £100,000 then you will have to pay, whether that is to sell your house or the money then comes out of your estate.  There is a chart on the BBC site where it shows that only 3 areas in the country have houses under the £100,000 and there aren't that many of them.  So in effect, anyone who gets old and needs any help in their home, before you had to pay if you had more than 23,000 savings, now nearly everyone will pay.  As for inheritance, most families have more than one child, so £100,000 is nothing much divided by 4 or 5 kids. , especially if you have worked hard and your house is worth treble or more.  Don't forget there is also an inheritance tax anyway, if your house is worth a lot, so they get you everyway. 

Of course, if you live in a council house, have everything attended to, no bills for maintenance ever, live off the state, you pay sod all for care.  How's that fair? 

I am all for paying taxes when you are working, all for  NI contributions to the NHS, even VAT on top of all that for clothes and everything we buy with money we have already been taxed on.  But this sick tax/ old age tax I find abhorrent.

Difficult I know, we have an ageing population and more people living longer, but there must be another way.  Perhaps some sort of insurance is the answer whilst working.

What a depressing country this is.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/

You're right Mimi, your House is already part of the Means Test.

Mimi wrote:My confusion over the `dementia tax` has been clarified.  There was a discussion about it on The World Tonight.

I was right after all - it is going to be better for all because now people will be left with £100,000 instead of £23,000.  And £100,000 is a substantial amount for anyone`s kids to inherit.

And having dementia makes no difference - no matter how long you are ill for, even if you are in a care home for 10 years or more, you will still be allowed to retain £100,000.  

I still maintain the winter fuel allowance should be mean tested - it`s such a waste of tax payer`s money to hand over hundreds of pounds to individuals who don`t need it.  I`ve heard wealthy pensioners joke about it paying for their more extravagant unnecessaries.

Pensions are taxable. Wealthy pensioners presumably pay a lot of tax . Why shouldn't they get something back? What is the point of working if you get nothing back from what your taxes pay for? Also means taxes cost money in administration. The fuel allowance is paid to thousands of UK pensioners who live outside the uk eg, in ireland, Framce and Spain. How do you means test those who live outside the uK when you (govt) has no access to their tax records? There will be VAT on the 'extravagant unnecessaries' these wealthy pensioners are buying!

It was National Insurance that was supposed to be for health and old age pension.  We get and old age pension so we are benefiting from what we have paid in.  As regards health, we have benefited all our lives from a basically free health service and will hopefully continue to do.   We will still benefit from health care if and when we get ill in old age, including dementia.

This is not about health or old age pension - it is about CARE. The NI stamp does not cover CARE.  Just like you have to pay for someone to look after your kids, i.e. a nursery or an au pair, you have to pay for someone to look after or CARE for you if you are not capable of looking after yourself, whatever your age. People with disabled kids and people with disabilities have to pay for any CARE they receive - it is not free.

So, what do we work all our lives for ?  We work to subsist and contribute to our society.  What is the point of having a big house and lots of savings ?  OK it may give people an easier life but it should also be for paying for someone to CARE for us if the need arises.  Why should everyone else have to pay for you to be CARED for when you have enough assets to pay for yourself because that burden will fall on all the other tax payers if you won`t pay.

Taxes are for everything else, i.e. police, fire brigades, roads, education, the environment, the military, defences, the royal family and goodness knows what else.  We have had those benefits and will continue to until we die.

Totally agree Mimi, but also agree with Freedom's opinion  "Of course, if you live in a council house, have everything attended to, no bills for maintenance ever, live off the state, you pay sod all for care.  How's that fair?"  The Labour party want to build more council Houses for people who don't/won't work so that the unemployed can spend more of our tax money. Don't get me wrong there are genuine people who need to be looked after by the State, but as everyone will agree ( I Think) there are too many who abuse the system. And when Corbyn borrows so many billions to pay for his pie in the sky World who do you think will have to pay it back. It won't be the rich, it will be the workers and their children.

That was the opinion of Candyfloss, not me.

Winslow Boy wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Mimi wrote:My confusion over the `dementia tax` has been clarified.  There was a discussion about it on The World Tonight.

I was right after all - it is going to be better for all because now people will be left with £100,000 instead of £23,000.  And £100,000 is a substantial amount for anyone`s kids to inherit.

And having dementia makes no difference - no matter how long you are ill for, even if you are in a care home for 10 years or more, you will still be allowed to retain £100,000.  

I still maintain the winter fuel allowance should be mean tested - it`s such a waste of tax payer`s money to hand over hundreds of pounds to individuals who don`t need it.  I`ve heard wealthy pensioners joke about it paying for their more extravagant unnecessaries.

Not quite Mimi.  Presently it is only savings that were taken into account for care and help in the home.  Now your house will be too, so that if it all amounts to over £100,000 then you will have to pay, whether that is to sell your house or the money then comes out of your estate.  There is a chart on the BBC site where it shows that only 3 areas in the country have houses under the £100,000 and there aren't that many of them.  So in effect, anyone who gets old and needs any help in their home, before you had to pay if you had more than 23,000 savings, now nearly everyone will pay.  As for inheritance, most families have more than one child, so £100,000 is nothing much divided by 4 or 5 kids. , especially if you have worked hard and your house is worth treble or more.  Don't forget there is also an inheritance tax anyway, if your house is worth a lot, so they get you everyway. 

Of course, if you live in a council house, have everything attended to, no bills for maintenance ever, live off the state, you pay sod all for care.  How's that fair? 

I am all for paying taxes when you are working, all for  NI contributions to the NHS, even VAT on top of all that for clothes and everything we buy with money we have already been taxed on.  But this sick tax/ old age tax I find abhorrent.

Difficult I know, we have an ageing population and more people living longer, but there must be another way.  Perhaps some sort of insurance is the answer whilst working.

What a depressing country this is.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/the-means-test-and-your-property/

You're right Mimi, your House is already part of the Means Test.

No it isn't, you have that wrong.  It is only means tested if you go into a care home, but if you have care in your OWN home then it is not.  That is the change that is taking place and written into the manifesto.  The Tories know 3 times as many have care in their own home as are in actual care homes, so now all those people will have to pay as well and their home in included in the assessment.

Have a
look at this page....

[snipped]
The key changes are:

• Taking into account the value of someone's home when means-testing for care at home, in the same way as they currently do for those in a care home
  

Tory care plan: Why many will pay more
About three times as many people receive care at home than are in care homes, so the change to allow the value of their homes to be included in means-testing would affect a lot of people.
A key group affected would be those receiving care at home whose properties are worth more than £100,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39964524

The cost of Labour 's full manifesto is less than the Tory's HS2 baby. The whole caboodle. In addition, unlike the Tory manifesto, each section is fully costed and the source funds explained.

But you knew that, didn't you, Winslow? 

Being a union man and all 

I stand corrected Freedom on the care at home. But I have known people who have lost their nest egg/inheritence from houses in the current situation paying for residential care.The £100,000 cap is a great deal better than the current £23,000. I believe that the house you have worked and paid for should not be part of any Means Test, as Council houses aren't. But Corbyn is promising ideals that can only be paid for by tax payers. His plans will make more people jump on the old "treacle Stick" because they will logically think that after working all their life they will be left with nothing.As you can see with all the Feral teenagers that were made by the Blair Government.

@Winslow Boy, I am not Freedom, I am Candyfloss.

candyfloss wrote:@Winslow Boy, I am not Freedom, I am Candyfloss.

My apologies.

I have just mentioned that on one post!

This isn't a subject on which I've ever had any experience though I worry about how my son might - hopefully, many years to come yet - have to deal with issues relating to his dear old mum.