We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

the snap general election thread

1137138140142143473

Comments

  • System
    System Posts: 178,374 Community Admin
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    mayonnaise wrote: »
    Tories trying to politicise the Manchester attack backfires somewhat...

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/tory-michael-fallon-slates-jeremy-10508519

    Urgh that needs a not safe for cringe warning
    This is a system account and does not represent a real person. To contact the Forum Team email forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
  • kabayiri
    kabayiri Posts: 22,740 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    I don't really get this harking back to the Iraq crisis.

    I had as much reason as anyone to dislike the 2003 military intervention : I have relatives who live in Iraq.

    But the world has moved on. It did happen, and what we do now is based on the current situation, not something in the previous decade.
  • Fella
    Fella Posts: 7,921 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Labour's odds have started moving in the other direction again. As I type they are back out to 14.0 on Betfair.

    Perhaps Corbyn's attempt to use the Manchester atrocity to win a few votes has backfired on him.
  • wotsthat
    wotsthat Posts: 11,325 Forumite
    Fella wrote: »
    Labour's odds have started moving in the other direction again. As I type they are back out to 14.0 on Betfair.

    Perhaps Corbyn's attempt to use the Manchester atrocity to win a few votes has backfired on him.

    Tory voters will have told pollsters they're voting Labour in anger because of the 'dementia tax'. Mrs May's latest U-turn might have reassured them.

    ..and the media have been otherwise engaged to have pointed out that when someone engages in so many U-turns there's a high likelihood they'll keep doing so.
  • setmefree2
    setmefree2 Posts: 9,072 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    edited 27 May 2017 at 2:14PM
    The debate moved on after the dog's breakfast of the Tory manifesto. However, I was wondering what people's opinion's are on TM's Social Care policy 10 days on......?

    Now that TM has provided us with *cough* "clarity" that there will be a cap - what do you think?
    Dilnot's Recommendations
    Our recommendations set out how Government could dramatically improve the system and make it one we can be proud of. They include the following proposals:
    • Individuals’ lifetime contributions towards their social care costs – which are currently potentially unlimited – should be capped. After the cap is reached, individuals would be eligible for full state support. This cap should be between £25,000 and £50,000. We consider that £35,000 is the most appropriate and fair figure
    • The means-tested threshold, above which people are liable for their full care costs, should be increased from £23,250 to £100,000
    • National eligibility criteria and portable assessments should be introduced to ensure greater consistency
    • All those who enter adulthood with a care and support need should be eligible for free state support immediately rather than being subjected to a means test.
    The Commission estimates that its proposals – based on a cap of £35,000 – would cost the State around £1.7billion.
    The Conservative manifesto said the plans were “more equitable, within and across the generations, than the proposals following the Dilnot Report”, which included a £72,000 cap on the total care costs the elderly would face. That cap had already been put into an Act of Parliament and was due to come into force in 2020.
    Most people will not need £72,000 worth of social care. At the time of the Dilnot commission in 2009-10, half of those aged 65 could expect to have lifetime social care bills of less than £25,000. More than 80 per cent of people would fall below the £72,000 cap.
    The purpose of the cap was to remove the catastrophic risk of extremely high social care bills for the minority — about one in five — who will need significant levels of care. There were two benefits in socialising that risk, the Dilnot commission argued. First, it equalised outcomes between people of similar means who had very different care needs. Second, by capping potential care bills, it would allow people to perhaps buy private insurance for the bills they would face. Those care costs could be punishing. For someone needing £150,000 of care in their lives, under the current system a large number of people can lose well over 70 per cent of their assets. As the chart shows, someone starting care with assets of just under £200,000 could see 80 per cent of them wiped out.
    https://www.ft.com/content/ec9fa110-3ef9-11e7-82b6-896b95f30f58

    Personally, I think this is a brave move. It would create new money for Social Care and take pressure of the NHS.

    Personally, I would be happy with a cap of £75,000 - maybe higher - maybe lower?

    However
    Rises in inheritance tax would fit with a model of risk-pooling for social care, but the changes could also be funded out of general taxation, lower benefits for pensioners or higher government borrowing.
    Thoughts?


    Don't forget this is about care in your home. Currently if you end up in a residential home

    http%3A%2F%2Fcom.ft.imagepublish.prod-us.s3.amazonaws.com%2F1b7b3a18-3f0d-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2?source=next&fit=scale-down&width=600


    Thoughts?
  • kabayiri
    kabayiri Posts: 22,740 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts
    setmefree2 wrote: »
    ...
    Personally, I think this is a brave move. It would create new money for Social Care and take pressure of the NHS.

    Personally, I would be happy with a cap of £50,000 - maybe higher?

    Thoughts?

    I think...I welcome more honesty in politics.

    I thought we might turn a corner after the GFC, but I underestimated the stupidity and short sightedness of politicians.

    Labour are promising jam today; jam tomorrow; and loads of people ringing in to the chat shows are lapping it up.

    There is nothing wrong in leveraging the one asset which for most of us has appreciated the most in our lifetime.
  • Fella
    Fella Posts: 7,921 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    setmefree2 wrote: »
    Thoughts?

    I think the problem is not that the proposed scheme was horribly unfair (although for some people it would have worked that way) it's that it was so destructive of aspiration, and aspiration is a huge part of what persuades people to vote Tory.

    Or put another way: far more people think they'll end up with a ton of assets, big house etc, than are actually likely to.

    The Tories worked out how many people this might affect & launched it on that basis. But it was instantly hated by everybody who thought it might affect them. And even more so by their kids. Worse still, it's a policy that can easily be interpreted as punishing those who "do the right thing" in order to pay for those who sponge their whole lives.

    IMO this policy was very similar to the U-Turned NI rise. Neither policy was actually that bad (or in reality would actually affect THAT many people). But both were easily able to be spun in a way that portrayed the Tories very badly.

    That's where May falls down IMO. She is allowing policy announcements based on what they are & failing to think about how they will be taken. In an ideal world this wouldn't be a big deal but in the current political climate it's suicidally bad strategy. Like it or loathe it we're in a Twitter universe where perception is almost everything. For the next two weeks at the very least she needs to realise that.
  • Fella
    Fella Posts: 7,921 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Fella wrote: »
    Corbyn has far more to lose than the Tories if the debate turns to homeland security. He repeatedly voted against anti-terrorism measures re the IRA & calls Hamas & Hezbollah "friends". I'm amazed & revolted in equal measure that him & his vile cabal of advisors have chosen to use this week's events to try to win a few votes. Although I don't honestly know why, he's a nasty piece of scum, always has been, and all he's done today is prove it yet again.

    Unsurprisingly, the gloves have now come off:

    https://order-order.com/2017/05/27/corbyn-ira-attack-ad-hits-1-million-views/


    Shortly after the Manchester atrocity there was a bit of discussion on TV about how it would affect the debate. The concensus was that it would be "more sombre". I wondered about that at the time. Looks like the reality is it'll be more vicious.

    As I've frequently repeated I loathe Corbyn but it's sh*t that the debate has to come down to this. He ought to be tossed on the garbage heap for his backwards economic policies alone. Or his horrendous choice of running mates. Or his hypocrisy. Or his treachery. The final horrible post-script to the Manchester atrocity looks like being that his statement yesterday has reduced it to just another thing to be used to try to get some votes. Depressing and vile.
  • Filo25
    Filo25 Posts: 2,140 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 46% (-2)
    LAB: 34% (+4)
    LDEM: 8% (-2)
    UKIP: 5% (-)
    GRN: 2% (-1)

    (via @ComRes / 24 - 26 May)

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 45% (-1)
    LAB: 35% (+2)
    LDEM: 7% (-1)
    UKIP: 5% (-)

    (via @OpiniumResearch / 23 - 25 May)
  • masterwilde
    masterwilde Posts: 270 Forumite
    whats so backward about nationalising certain industries?
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.4K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.