• 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?

zand said:
@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.
Click to expand...
Zand- it makes sense to most people when it is explained clearly without the spin for political gain. We get it constantly and yet I have only seen one article that explains it clearly and accurately. Ruth Davidson has tried to explain it but she gets shouted down for supporting the "abhorrent rape clause". What I don't get is what is abhorrent about allowing Benefit to be claimed for a child conceived in exceptional circumstances?
I cannot believe that I am the only one who has taken the trouble to look at the legislation, the forms, the Guidance and the manifestos and pulled out the facts. As I said the media has a lot to answer for.
PS The election leaflet I received from my local SNP MP consisted of non stop sound bites about "Tories" in various guises and yes the "Tory rape clause" was in it too along with "hard brexit" and "extreme brexit" numerous times. I want a local MP who lives here and is prepared to work for the good of the community rather than spouting inaccurate abuse.
 
Prem51 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I believe that is true; but we should also remember that Labour has carried out some NHS privitisation too - and I absolutely disagree with the policy.
 
Last edited:
dancer said:
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!
Click to expand...
To be fair, they are all terrible.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree. The money has to come from somewhere. Alternatives are wealth taxes or for pensioners to continue to pay NI for example. Better to be taken from the estate.
 
Last edited:
dbr10 said:
I think the point about the cap is we don't know what level it might be set at. People assume it will only affect the fairly wealthy; but it could just as easily be set at the Pension Credit benefit level, for example, affecting most (10m) pensioners.
Click to expand...

It won't affect ANYONE, wealthy or poor other than the people hoping to inherit something after the home owners have died. It certainly won't affect the home owners. They will be in their graves. Where would you rather see the proceeds from the house sale go (over and above the £100,000) Towards the ever increasing social care costs or the ones expecting to inherit it?

It is a vast improvement on the present system, which as I said earlier, forces the home owners to sell up as soon as they go in residential care, and they can only keep £23,000. Sometimes there are still other people living in that house who aren't the owners - they suffer as they either have to buy it themselves at normal market value or find somewhere else to live. Under the proposed system, no-one suffers apart from the inheritors, and they still get to keep £100,000. It isn't a tax on pensioners at all and the amount of the cap is irrelevant to the pensioners.
 
dbr10 said:
I agree. The money has to come from somewhere. Alternatives are wealth taxes or for pensioners to continue to pay NI for example. Better to be taken from the estate.
Click to expand...
The Wealth Tax has already been floated in the Labour manifesto as an option but doesn't say how it will work. Kezia Dugdale (Scottish Labour leader) has said though the the Wealth Tax would tax London and the South East to redistribute to other areas in the UK as it is needed. I doubt it would be restricted to London and the South East.
 
Ian_Laye said:
The last labour government left us all poor, I have not had a pay rise in over 8 years from my employer but thanks to the conservatives my take home pay has risen.
Click to expand...
I agree, and it's because of labour's ridiculous policies that we need austerity at all. Spending what we haven't got always feels good at the time, not so good when we have to pay it back plus interest.
 
zand said:
I agree, and it's because of labour's ridiculous policies that we need austerity at all. Spending what we haven't got always feels good at the time, not so good when we have to pay it back plus interest.
Click to expand...
I think they've learnt their lesson. They won't fall into that trap again.
I'm not pro labour but my family is better off not under tory rule. End of.
Maybe that will change but all the while I'm ill due to tory policies, it won't. :(
 
Before we all start dividing up the country's wealth for our own personal benefit we need to make sure we still have some. I am voting for my local MP, a nice lady. I live in Maidenhead.
 
I'm not pro any party, just pro common sense.

@Mr_Pot that's exactly what so many want to do...to have what others are perceived to have for themselves. What they don't realise is that once it's all shared out they will still have nothing.

I think it's time I left this thread now, the last one got nasty and a handful of people made particularly cruel unjustified comments about me personally. I'm not going through that again.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
It won't affect ANYONE, wealthy or poor other than the people hoping to inherit something after the home owners have died. It certainly won't affect the home owners. They will be in their graves. Where would you rather see the proceeds from the house sale go (over and above the £100,000) Towards the ever increasing social care costs or the ones expecting to inherit it?

It is a vast improvement on the present system, which as I said earlier, forces the home owners to sell up as soon as they go in residential care, and they can only keep £23,000. Sometimes there are still other people living in that house who aren't the owners - they suffer as they either have to buy it themselves at normal market value or find somewhere else to live. Under the proposed system, no-one suffers apart from the inheritors, and they still get to keep £100,000. It isn't a tax on pensioners at all and the amount of the cap is irrelevant to the pensioners.
Click to expand...
Sorry. I was, wrongly, thinking of the Winter fuel allowance, which is why I edited my post to correct it.
 
maglil55 said:
The Wealth Tax has already been floated in the Labour manifesto as an option but doesn't say how it will work. Kezia Dugdale (Scottish Labour leader) has said though the the Wealth Tax would tax London and the South East to redistribute to other areas in the UK as it is needed. I doubt it would be restricted to London and the South East.
Click to expand...
No, I wouldn't have thought so. It would apply more widely.
 
Ian_Laye said:
The last labour government left us all poor, I have not had a pay rise in over 8 years from my employer but thanks to the conservatives my take home pay has risen.
Click to expand...
No it has not. Average weekly earnings in real terms are less than they were before the financial crisis in 2007. You may have had a cash increase, but joy one that has kept pace with inflation - unless you are not the average person of course.
 
dbr10 said:
No it has not. Average weekly earnings in real terms are less than they were before the financial crisis in 2007. You may have had a cash increase, but joy one that has kept pace with inflation - unless you are not the average person of course.
Click to expand...
@Ian_Laye. I should really read these posts before replying. If you are talking about rises in the personal tax allowance, you are still wrong
 
Back
Top