Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Solidarity with whom?
If you saw the posting to which I responded to, you would have noted it was the decision by the political parties to suspend campaigning.
Solidarity with whom?
I think that the attack was barbaric and agree with a previous poster who said that we should suspend campaigning, but I do also believe that this shouldn't be allowed to damage our democracy.
If mum broke a leg, she'd be whisked off to hospital and treated for free the whole time she's there...maybe even get a respite place for recovery free too.
But it's her mind that's broken and she's been abandoned by the state.
All I wanted to suggest that as a mark of respect to those affected by this atrocity, we on this website could give a period of non-discussion as the political parties had done.
All I wanted to suggest that as a mark of respect to those affected by this atrocity, we on this website could give a period of non-discussion as the political parties had done.
I agree with your sentiment, Paul, but I think carrying on as normal is the way of dealing with those who try to terrorise us.
The Guardian said:The Conservatives received a huge boost in donations in the three months before Theresa May called a surprise general election, according to figures published by the Electoral Commission.
The party received £5.46m from January to March this year, more than twice the £2.65m given to Labour.
By the time the prime minister called the election on 18 April, the Tories had received £1.85m more in donations during the first quarter of the year than it had in the last three months of 2016.
The biggest individual donation came from the Conservative party treasurer, Michael Davis, who gave the party £317,000. The South African-born former mining executive is overseeing the party’s fundraising efforts, which have targeted wealthy businesspeople and city figures.
Last week, it emerged that the Conservatives had raised £1.5m more than Labour in the first week of the general election campaign, receiving more than £4.1m while Labour raised just over £2.7m.
The Conservatives are expected to get close to the £19m maximum they are permitted to spend during an election campaign. Labour is expecting to spend less than the Tories, amid a drive for donations from its 500,000 members.
In the first quarter of the year, the biggest private donation received by Labour was £300,000 from the former Formula One boss Max Mosley. Ukip’s biggest gift from an individual was £129,506 from spread-betting financier Stuart Wheeler.
The Liberal Democrats received £603,155 over the three months, including £50,000 from the Indian-born businessman Sudhir Choudhrie, who has been linked to the recent bribery scandal at Rolls-Royce.
Choudhrie was arrested in 2014 as part of the investigation into corruption by the Serious Fraud Office.
Lawyers for Sudhir Choudhrie have previously denied any wrongdoing by the businessman.
Last week, Choudhrie interviewed Tim Farron for Eastern Eye, saying he enjoyed the role of being the Lib Dems’ adviser on India and “had the pleasure of monthly meetings with the party’s leader, Tim Farron.”
The Lib Dems raised only £180,000 in the first week of the election campaign, which is likely to raise further questions about their appeal under Farron.
Other major donations to the Conservatives include £55,000 from the Rigby Group, which owns exclusive hotels including Bovey Castle in Devon, where the Olympic diver Tom Daley recently celebrated his wedding.
A company called Anglesource, run by the billionaire Arora brothers, also gave £50,000.
A property firm owned by a Palestinian-born businessman has given £65,000 to the Conservatives this year. CC Property UK is owned by Said Khoury, a billionaire who also owns CCC, the largest construction firm in the Middle East.
Other major donations came from Leopold Noe, the property developer, who gave the Conservatives £130,000. The hedge-fund manager John Armitage gave £125,000.
JS Bloor (Services), linked to the property tycoon John Bloor, gave £120,000. JS Bloor and Armitage also made donations in the first week of the election campaign, which are subject to different reporting rules.
According to the Electoral Commission, the Tory party also has a credit facility of £5,554,000, while Labour has access to borrowing £113,000.
Labour received £1.96m from trade unions, including £657,702 from Unite. Public funds are also listed for each party, which predominantly boost the totals for opposition parties.
This looks a bit shady to me.
But if there was a complication and a leg had to be lopped off, any on going care needs would not be paid for by the state.
I have huge sympathy on both sides of the argument, I really do. There is no easy answer. It isn't fair. But someone has to pay for it. And I don't agree with passing the burden on to taxpayers to protect an inheritance.
Yes you would? I had part of a finger amputated (OK, not a leg but same thing) and when I was sent home I still got free checks back at the hospital and was entitled to free physical therapy (For a finger ) which naturally was pointless; and when it was right I went back to work.
But the argument is the wealthy have already put lots and lots of cash in via tax and NI. Why the heck should they pay more when the layabouts don't pay a penny either during their life or old age?
Does anyone know if there are any insurance products which will cover the costs of long-term social care? I have health insurance at the moment, but haven't seen anything on the market which will allow me to pay into a fund to ensure I get care and don't have to lose assets/estate value in the process.
If this doesn't exist presently, I wonder how long it will be until the financial services market starts offering these products?
M
I don't like the assumption that people without assets are "layabouts". As I've said, my parents have lost everything after my father had a stroke and had to leave work. They've got nothing, but worked damn hard all their life.
But the fundamental problem is that someone has to pay. And I don't agree with passing the burden on to taxpayers to protect a child's inheritance.
Do you want to deny a son or daughter that have sacrificed their job/career (and the salary/paid holidays etc that go with it) to spend years and years looking after ailing parents a decent inheritance?
There will be a point where people refuse to care as everything bar £100k if they are lucky gets taken away from them in the end.
Alter Ego said:Does anyone know if there are any insurance products which will cover the costs of long-term social care?
If this doesn't exist presently, I wonder how long it will be until the financial services market starts offering these products?
I certainly didn't agree with much of the smallprint of the "dementia tax", but I do believe that there are going to have to be changes to how we fund elderly social care. I think charging the estate of the cared-for person is the fairest way.
1. They aren't layabouts! It's those that won't get off their backside (except to breed and go down the betting shop) to do a day's work that are bleeding the system.
2. Do you want to deny a son or daughter that have sacrificed their job/career (and the salary/paid holidays etc that go with it) to spend years and years looking after ailing parents a decent inheritance?
There will be a point where people refuse to care as everything bar £100k if they are lucky gets taken away from them in the end. So all the elderly get dumped on the NHS where there isn't room as it is, and the cost would be astronomical.
At a meeting I was told there are something like 100,000 such carers in my county alone...how much are they saving the treasury? And of course they are all hidden away and can't strike....
As everyone says, this problem has finally come to light and no-one has the answer. At least we are talking now, but I hope I have proved that taking money away from carers will create far more problems than it will solve. They get sod-all as it is.
Discussion taking place in my workplace at moment. Gist is as follows:
# Why should assets be taken away from someone who has worked all their life to provide social care, whilst someone who has lived a life on benefits and not got any real assets doesn't have to contribute to their care?
# As usual, the elderly get what they need, and the young get shafted (again).
It's those that won't get off their backside (except to breed and go down the betting shop) to do a day's work that are bleeding the system.
The Guardian said:Benefits fraud costs the government £1.3bn a year, according to official statistics, while the gap between tax owed and tax paid is put at £34bn a year by officials.
It's just a pity those who pay nowt get it all.
what's the point of saving and buying a house if at some point it's all gonna be taken way from you (even if you are dead?) to pay for your care, when if you hadn't saved/bought you would get the care off the state?
(e) a tax on sugary and salty - unhealthy - foods/drinks paid directly tot he NHS
It's just a pity those who pay nowt get it all.
Sugary foods, it would help if we got kids hooked on fags at primary school (just like half my class....)That boils down to what the point of a house is. Is it an investment, or is it a roof over your head?
If it's an investment, then why shouldn't you use the proceeds of that investment to pay for the "rainy day" that is end of life care?
If it is a roof over your head, why should your children get to keep the benefits of an accident of inflation whilst the taxpayer gets stiffed with the bill?
Bear in mind that people in social accommodation already pass the benefit of inflation on to the council/housing association.
End of life care has become so expensive because the end of people's lives are now so long. There are plenty of baby-boomers who will have been retired for almost as long as they were working.
Pumping people full of fat and salt and sugar, so they die of heart disease at 65 instead, might not be such a bad solution
People who pay nowt have nowt to pay for it with.
If you deliberately get shut of your money, then you don't get the care.
UKIP leader Paul Nuttall says he is set to resume election campaigning in the wake of the Manchester terror attack.
Explaining his decision to launch his party's manifesto on Thursday, Mr Nuttall said: "We cannot be cowed or allow our life to be undermined by those who wish to do us harm."
Government sources say the campaign may be delayed "for several days" in the wake of the suicide bombing.
But Mr Nuttall says the best response is to allow democracy to continue.
The problem is that this proposed "solution" to social care does not do anything to protect people from the risk.
Its essentially a reversion to a dog-eat-dog solution where you just have to hope you die before you get Alzheimers or Dementia because if you do you are bankrupt and there will be effectively no inheritance or home.
I don't like taxing capital assets because it effectively forces people to eternally tread water on a treadmill just to support state consumption.
Will the election date also be postponed?
A hundred grand sounds like a lot of money, but it is not really that much once you actually try to work out what you can actually do with it.£100k is not bankruptcy. Bankruptcy is when you have no money and can't afford to feed yoursel of heat your house if you can afford to rent one.
Nobody is talking about taxing, just expecting those who have state support pay a proportion of the cost that is progressively based on their actual wealth.
Will the election date also be postponed?
Will the election date also be postponed?