• Guest, the forum is undergoing some upgrades and so the usual themes will be unavailable for a few days. In the meantime, you can use the forum like normal. We'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Who are you voting for in the general election 2017?

I am a pensioner. Mrs. May proposed the dementia tax and stopping the triple lock. Having, presumably realised that she might lose the pensioner vote she has cancelled the dementia tax and says she will cancel the triple lock in 2020 but not immediately. She has already shown her hand though.

Forgetting any big picture and just being a selfish pensioner I feel it would be like a turkey voting for Christmas if I voted Conservative.

My problem now is choosing from what's left.
 

"and says she will cancel the triple lock....."

She also said that there would be no snap election, didn't she? Oh dear, pants on fire...if you believe anything that she says, you probably deserve the consequences.

Cluck cluck, gobble gobble, now where's me party hat?
 
Last edited:
None of your examples show a government policy to privatize the health service, they are just scare mongering stories. The fact is if Mr Corbyn and his cronies had their way this country would be bankrupt very quickly and then there would be a real threat to our health service and pensions. Look at what has happened to Greece, a prime example of what happens to a country that lived beyond its means.
 
They are not making a profit for us. They still receive huge taxpayer subsidies. And you forget that they are still nationalised - just owned by the French, Germans, Dutch and Chinese - but not us.
 
We will be screwed on Brexit. 27 countries to 1. Any one can veto the deal. We are already poorer with the fall in the £ against $ and €, and the rise in inflation, which will mean a fall in real earnings this year.
 
I am a pensioner. I worked for over 30 years in what was the Benefits Agency/DSS/Supplementary Benefit/Income Support

I cannot understand why anyone is scared about the so called dementia tax as far as residential care is concerned.

You only have to look at the current rules - when the survivor of a couple has to go into residential care they have to sell their house as soon as possible. Everything over £23,000 has to be used to pay for this care. There is no deferment of this house sale - it has to be done more or less immediately. I cannot tell you how much angst this causes the family, some of whom may still be living in the house.

Under the proposed rules no-one has to sell their house until both partners have died, and the £23,000 will increase to £100,000. The choice is theirs - sell straight away or leave it until after death. The only folk that may lose out are the family members expecting a large inheritance.

As far as I can see, the proposed rules on paying for residential care seem like a better deal to me.
 
As a pensioner and someone who will probably increasingly rely on our NHS I couldn't, and never have voted Conservative.
I have voted for Labour (usually), LibDems and Greens in the past, but will be voting Labour on Thursday as they are the only ones who will be able to defend the NHS and pensions from the Tories' attacks.
 
I agree with all of your post. If the family members feel aggrieved about possibly losing an inheritance then they can do what was done years ago, when there was no social care - get together and agree to look after the person themselves, at least for as long as possible. If they chose not to do so, or can't for whatever reason then it's only right that the person's assets are used to pay for their own care when they have died. We don't have a bottomless pit of money, those who can pay should. The proposed rules take the stress out of the situation for many. I don't see a problem with it either.
 
I abhor the use of "dementia tax" - these so called spin doctors need removing. It's just as bad in Scotland with the other parties going on constantly about the Conservative "rape clause". Of course being honest about it doesn't suit the spin doctors.
So fact, there is no "dementia tax" - there was a proposal to make changes to paying for social care costs by increasing how much could be kept for inheritance to £100,000 and treating care home/home care the same by bringing the value of the privately owned home into the equation. Her error was not putting an absolute cap on the amount that would go to social care costs but at least they guaranteed the property would not have to be sold during their lifetime. Here if you go into care it does have to be sold if assets including the house are over £25k ish.
The daft thing is the Labour proposals in their manifesto and costings would cost any pensioner concerned about the Conservative social care proposal a darn sight more but it is not being pointed out to you with a fancy tag - but it is there. First is the Land Value Tax to replace council tax but is a lot higher so that's an annual cost. Next is they are reversing the increases to the Inheritance Tax thresholds (along with other reversals). So if your property was of a value to be worried by the Conservative plans then Labour's will take you for even more both during and after your lifetime. The 'triple lock' was only relevant when inflation is very low. They are retaining the double lock of the higher of earnings or prices. Dropping the 2.5% from 2020 is an irrelevance with rising inflation.
There's no "rape clause" either. This resulted from the decision to limit child tax credits to 2 children. You do not have to be working to get child tax credits. This was announced in 2015 but it was only coming into effect from 6 April 2017 so plenty of notice. The logic behind this was there had to be an absolute limit on the number of children the state would support. No one was limiting the number of children a family could have but the decision had to be on whether you could afford to support the children yourself. In consultation , it came out that there were situations where the number of children could exceed 2 through no fault of the parents so they brought in an "exceptional circumstances clause" of which there are many....multiple births, adoption, non parental care and non consensual conception (hence the spin). So what's the facts here ? Any children born before 6 April 2017 there's no limit on the number of children that the CTC can be claimed for. From 6 April 2017 you can only claim for a child born after that date if the child comes under one of the many "exceptional circumstances" then they can claim CTC. So the crys to remove this clause would result in no exceptions and a straightforward limit of 2 children? It is also a lie that the mother has to disclose in depth details. She has to complete her name, NI Number, Address , child"s name and sign a declaration. The other bit is a declaration by some kind of professional to confirm the right to claim.
In case you are wondering I am not a member of any party and I am not an activist. I just had a very analytical job that required taking apart Government legislation and looking for the flaws then explaining it in understandable terms to anyone it was relevant to. I have voted for different parties depending on the circumstances and I voted to remain but I respect the result to leave the EU.
Thankfully we still live in a democracy and we can vote for whoever we like but I wish everyone was voting based on fact not spin. Never a truer phrase that the devil is in the detail.
Lecture over and it's nothing personal - I just hate the media and politicians misleading the electorate.
 
After Thatcher, I'll never vote Conservative, EVER.
My husband has been waiting almost a year for an appointment with an orthopaedic consultant, so I certainly won't be voting SNP who seem to concentrate on getting independence, rather than running Scotland properly.
As for who I will vote for, your guess is as good as mine!
 
Well said Bluetit1802. Totally agree with you.
 
@maglil55 I didn't know that about the 'rape clause'. It makes sense to only have the number of children you can afford to support, this seems like a sensible policy to me. In fact it's one I have been saying should be brought in world wide since we have too many people on this small planet of ours. I know that anyone can hit hard times and need state help and I wouldn't want to stop them getting it, but it's so wrong when people have more children knowing that they can't afford to support them.
 
This time, deciding how to vote is a total nightmare because I'm not happy about any of the parties. I don't think I will know who I'm voting for until I get to the polling station. The only thing I am sure of is that it WON'T be Conservative. Don't understand how anyone can ever think how they are a good idea, unless you believe everything you read in the media...
 
Ian_Laye said:
Where do you get the ridiculous idea that the NHS is going to be privatized???????
Click to expand...
It is slowly been done now, under your nose!
Find out. You'll be surprised what you find out! Do a comparison of 5yrs ago. Its evident within that time alone.
Shrunken staffing levels but more operations, for profit. Sponsors from private companies to pay for nhs needs. Far less individuals leaving nhs money in their wills too. Less money collected by sponsorship for donations as gov. reducing budgets when it happened. They took advantage of people's good will. Despicable!
 
maglil55 said:
Her error was not putting an absolute cap on the amount that would go to social care costs
Click to expand...

I can't understand why people are so concerned about the amount of the cap, either. The house owner(s) are dead. The only people it will affect are those hoping to inherit. I would rather it go towards the cost of the social care than hopeful inheritors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…