Theresa May to seek snap election for 8 June

[unclebulgaria67]

The Tories can raise millions in a short space of time. Labour are in debt and need Trade Union money to fight an election, which they might not get. Lib Dems are also not in a finanicial position for an election.

 

Corbyn is mad to support an early election that his party is not equipped to fight.

[unclebulgaria67]

They were in debt, but have had good income over recent years, so might not be the case. The last election cost them £48 mllion.

[unclebulgaria67]

What happens when the Tories lose their majority ? Not very likely looking at polls, but how many would trust the Tories with a large majority e.g hard brexit with no negotiation on article 50 terms, no EU trade deal in sight, removal of many rights e.g Human rights, workers rights.

 

During the election campaign Theresa May is going to have to tell voters her full plans and they may not like them. Jeremy Corbyn seems ill prepared to offer an alternative.

[unclebulgaria67]

Do you mean anyone but the Labour party snowdragon, or do you mean anyone but the Corbynistas?

 

If the former, why do you think that the Conservatives, who are the prime movers in creating what I think you probably mean by our changed country, are any better?

 

If i remember Snowdragon does not like Labour due to things that happened when they were in power that affected their family. Personal experience is always a major factor behind voting decisions.

[unclebulgaria67]

I do NOT support any party, all I remember is the mess the Labour party left the country in

 

Seems most here do not like the Tories lol like I said I do not support any party

 

Unfortunately, there is no alternative to political democracy for a decent society. Otherwise you have Russia, North Korea, Saudi Arabia to name a few.

 

I would like proportional representation so every vote counts and there would be more choice.

[unclebulgaria67]

At that rate Toby, lets not bother having an election. Instead of having any Politicians in Westminster, just have a permanent civil service government who work to a set of rules decided by the public, with a jury of the people picked at random each month to scrutinise them.

 

Each member of the jury would be offered bribes by vested interests to help achieve certain policy objectives and the civil servants would take the lucratibe directorships currents offered to ex government ministers.

 

Trying to create a perfect world where one party and their leader offers you most things you want, is never going to happen. You have to decide on the say 3 most important things that will affect your life and your families future. Look at what is being offered and what is most likely to happen. Make your choice, put a cross in a box and wait to be disappointed !

[unclebulgaria67]

Soggymoggy

 

That is just the deficit i.e difference between spending and earnings. The coaltion from 2010 increased taxes and reduced increase in spending. After the 07/08 world banking crash, the UK economy would have recovered after a few years anyway and the deficit reduced. If you look at government deficits, the UK still has a higher deficit than other major economies.

 

I doubt had a Labour government been re-elected in 2010, that the general economic position would have been much different. Politicians don't really make much difference to economics, which are up/down on a global scale.

[unclebulgaria67]

I would not trust any government with a large majority, when they did not win 50% of the votes cast. Politicians with majorities tend to think they can do anything they want.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes it is a serious question. Just go to todays Daily Mail online. Due to the election, the government have conveniently stopped the new business rates support scheme being introduced.

 

The Sun frontpage and others reveal that the Tories might use the election to hit people with more taxes. Brexit is just being used to cover up a new agenda for the Tories to target ordinary people e.g increased taxes and pension changes.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yep Thatcher deregulated Banks following the Reagan adminstrations work on this. There was a documentary all about this. The idea to change Banking was first thought about in the late 1970's and it was Reagan who implemented it in about 1985. Thatcher followed and London financial centre turned into a big casino operation.

[unclebulgaria67]

Trouble is that Jeremy Corbyn seems to be a leader who would never command the Armed Forces in any action to defend the country, unless enemy forces invaded and even then he would want peace talks.

 

Fine ideals, but voters won't elect a leader they don't trust with the security of the country.

 

I don't mind some of the economics suggested by Corbyn/McDonnell, but they never seem to have full details of their plans. At one time they tried involving some top economists, but these walked away, because Labour wanted to use their names and not to actually work with them. You can't expect to quote names behind policies, when the names never actually comtributed to the forming of the policies.

[unclebulgaria67]

I vote Lib Dem as the closest to centre politics. I did an online politics test where you answer loads of questions and it tells you which type of politician matches your views. From memory it was Charles Kennedy, who led the Lib Dems more than a decade ago. Centre left, but more thoughtful social liberal who looked at issues based on people, not political interests.

[unclebulgaria67]

There is a lot of truth to this video rant. The Tories have always repeated claims that they are better at running the economy and are the low tax party, but the facts often reveal a different story. Many Tories keep referring back to Labours economic issues during the 1970's, when that is nearly 50 years ago.

 

[unclebulgaria67]

What Abbot was getting confused about is that Labour plan about 2,500 increase per year over 4 years. This will cost £80 million approx per 2,500 extra recruited. For some reason she said £300,000, which might be cost of 10 extra Police, if added to say Hackney Police where she is MP. And then she said £80 million which is about first year cost of recruiting 2,500 Police.

 

She was clearly in a confused state and should carry notes with her.

[unclebulgaria67]

Perhaps we should be able to vote for an independent ' none of the above' Prime Minister who can select a government from MP's of all parties, so that it represents the whole country and all political ideas.

 

If i had the power, i would ban political parties and have a house of independents, who are subject to re-election every 3 years. And they would only be able to serve a max of 2 terms i.e 6 years. This would stop career politicians. Parliament might actually start to debate the issues based on facts and you would not get MP's blindly voting as their whips have told them to.

[unclebulgaria67]

Tony Blair was a decent PM, apart from the Iraq War. The UK did very well between 1997 and 2007. Then Gordon Brown was unlucky with the world banking crash.

[unclebulgaria67]

Labout can't win unless they convince Worcester Wendy and Dagenham Dave that they have the package that they can support. E.g good leader and policies. I should imagine that the Tories and their media friends will work out that Labours plans can only be afforded by increasing payroll taxes for most people.

 

People don't vote for tax increases at elections. You have to lie to them and within a month of the election increase taxes in an emergency budget, because the last Government left a large hole in the budget.

 

No wonder people have gone off politics, as it is played by people who only win by telling untruths.

[unclebulgaria67]

I reckon we should give anarchy a try, to see whether people can manage without politicians.

 

It might be a bit like when traffic lights are not working. Drivers seem to work out a way to navigate the junction without any problems and it can often be quicker.

[unclebulgaria67]

CB

 

But where you live it must be an easy Tory win, as UKIP votes will go to the Tories.

 

I live in a Tory seat, where Lib Dems need a large swing of votes to them to win. I can't see it happening, unless people vote tactically,, rather than waste votes for Labour etc.

 

What do you think of automatic sign over of a property to cover care costs ? It sounds like the Tories intend to legislate so those going into care have to legally sign to commit to selling the house on death, to cover care costs. They are not waiting until savings meets the threshold before the house has to be sold to cover costs. This could mean that having to legally sign over property proceed rights at the start puts people off entering relatives into care when it is the best option. Also care homes knowing the likely value they might receive, might be tempted to increase fees, seeing it as an opportunity

[unclebulgaria67]

I'm now thinking those children in a good financial position, it would be more cost effective to employ private care, not agency, e.g 24 hours a day than sell a parent(s) home. A home rises in gain, imo, so avoiding selling is best option and your member of family can stay in their house in familiar surroundings and a home they love.

 

That would be expensive, as nursing companies charge £20 an hour to care for people on private home visits. Care homes charge about £5 an hour to cover 24/7 care for people.

 

Personally, i think people are better off having very unhealthy diets and taking part in dangerous sporting activities than going into a care home. Yes they won't live as long, but at least they will have quality of life. If you have been to a care home where people have dementia, it can be a very upsetting experience. They don't really know what day of the week it is and often don't recognise visitors. If they remember anything, it is from about 40 years ago. My aunt would suddenly burst into tears after realising that her Sisters were not alive. They died years ago and she went to their funerals.

[unclebulgaria67]

I've done a bit more typing since that post UncleB:madgrin:

 

Yep, seen that. If you employed a nurse directly, you would also have to pay their pension, as it is the law now. Don't know how much though.

 

There are loads of companies that provide live in carers and the staff they employ who are not even qualified. A nephew of mine was given 2 weeks training by a company and then had to live in a house looking after a disabled person.

 

I think there is another model to look at, which happens in Australia and might do here. You buy an apartment or bungalow in a care village, where you have nurses etc onsite living in their own accommodation. Each apartment/bungalow offers private independent accommodation, where people have a nicer more dignified private space and they have visits by care staff at allotted times. There are also alarms in each room that can be triggered, so care staff can react. There are also community facilities onsite for social activities. The good thing about this model is that they own the property and as they are popular they increase in value. There are also properties where couples can stay together, rather than be be split up, when one needs more care.

[unclebulgaria67]

A thought occurs to me about the care home issue.

 

What happens when one of a married couple who is older goes into care ? How is the Tory proposed policy going to affect them.

 

If you have say an 80 year old man who goes into care and a wife of say 70 who stays in the family home. Because the council don't pay the full rate, she has been paying a top up amount. Her husband then dies and the government has a charge on the family home for the care fees. Obviously she does not have to sell the house immediately, but if say she wanted to move house, no doubt any conveyancing Solicitor would have to pay the government their care home fee debt. Or would government allow charge on house to be transfered to her new house ?

 

Is the Tory policy of an upfront charge on property at time of entering a care home making it more complicated ?

 

If when the wife in this situation needs to go into a care home later, there would then be a second charge added to any house ? How would government know value of equity in any home ? Compulsory valuation at time of entering into care home, so goverment knew approximately how much was available.

 

I think if and when any new Tory government come to legislate for this change, they are going to face a lot of opposition, including from many Tories. I don't quite get why they don't just introduce a cap on fees per person and a calculation is done at time of death how much of a charge on property is due. There needs to a balance made between how much the state pay from taxation and how much people pay from savings/assets.

[unclebulgaria67]

Quite a funny election trailer

 

[unclebulgaria67]

Tory care policy might run into problems with councils.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39995648

 

Given current difficulty faced by councils, how many are going to wait years for a house to be sold. Is central Government going to increase the amount they give to councils, as their new policy will cause a gap in funds.

[unclebulgaria67]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DALAgeaU0AAh4W9.jpg

 

 

If this is true, the Tory policy is designed to make people look at taking out equity release policies to cover care costs.

 

I just wonder how lucrative this might become, when you have care fees increasing, money quickly being run down towards the £100k you are allowed to keep and then you have an Insurers looking for a quick sale after death.

 

People need to start asking more information about this. And also ask how the other parties are going to pay for care.

 

Personally after seeing people in care homes with dementia needing 24 hour care, it is a health condition. It cannot be their fault that they have got to an age, where their brain function has deteriorated. Yes i think where people can make a contribution they should, but to have to pay 100% of care costs in many cases cannot be fair.