• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Theresa May calls General Election on 8th June.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
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.

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.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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.

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.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
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.

Perhaps, but I don't think this attack should be allowed to change what we're doing here. I refuse to give the perpetrator(s) that satisfaction.

Several people died on Monday night. As bb21 said, we all share solidarity with them. Let's not let this attack change us. Unlike Daesh-dominated Syria, we have our democratic to vote and to try to change things. That's a brilliant thing.

So I maintain my right to scrutinise both Government and opposition, no matter what has happened. These people hate freedom, and democracy. The targets of this attack were children and young people enjoying their freedom at a pop concert. Like the Bataclan attack, the perpetrator sought to take that freedom away from young people.

We need to defend that freedom today.
 

backontrack

Established Member
Joined
2 Feb 2014
Messages
6,383
Location
The UK
This looks a bit shady to me.

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.

Link to article
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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 :p) which naturally was pointless; and when it was right I went back to work.

At no point was there any payment!

Q is someone was part-paralysed in a car crash (a) at what point would "free" NHS care stop (if ever) and (b) would their insurance cover them for continuing care after (a)?

Thinking if that's the case, it backs up my suggestion for people who hope to be wealthy in old age to have the choice to insure themselves with a state health annuity between 60 and 66 to the value of 5 - 10% of their entire wealth - a one-off payment in full. Can even use any pension lump-sum.
After that they are covered for any eventuality, and if they die soon (or live healthily) that money goes into a central pot for everyone.

So anyone without family to pass stuff down to won't need that insurance and will just let the state take the bill after death (house/assets) and the un-wealthy get free care anyway.

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?

But at least if workers know they have that lump-sum arrangement they can prepare for it.

However, I do like the plans of a caller on LBC....."no way are the Tories getting my parent's house. They will spend, spend, spend, and when they die I will set fire to the house!!"

The last bit might end with the caller saying hello to a judge, but in my case if the Tories got their way I would keep the £100k and let the house fall to bits naturally (the roof needs doing, the boiler is condemmed and some rooms don't have electricity....) so it's worth nowt, and my Tory-loving neighbours will be happy to know when the council take it over they could use it as a sex-offender's bail hostel.

That should help them to support the Tory's bill.....
Seems such a simple solution to a complex proble.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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 :p) which naturally was pointless; and when it was right I went back to work.

Medical rehabilitation would be free.

But if you'd lost an arm and needed help doing the cooking and cleaning, you'd need to pay for it yourself.

The amount of money you get from things like Personal Independence Payments (which are welfare benefits, not NHS payments) might cover it, or it might not.

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?

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.

I understand the argument both ways, as I've said elsewhere if my mother in law dies quickly and peacefully my wife will inherit a couple of hundred grand, but if she needs protracted care she won't.

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.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
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?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
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?

Not that I'm aware of. The closest would be critical illness (lump sum on diagnosis of a serious medical condition like a stroke or heart attack) or income protection insurance (ongoing payment to replace your earnings if you're not able to work due to loss of job or illness). But I'm not aware of a policy specifically designed to cover long term care costs. Which, as you say, might seem like a potential gap in the market.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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.

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.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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.

There is a cost attached to care, both domiciliary and in residential homes. The question is who pays for it.

Someone who gives up work to care for a parent won't lose out, unless their parent starts to need significant domiciliary or residential care. Carers won't suffer because carers are doing the care for free.

But yes, I agree there is a perverse incentive for people to not care for their parents, as the floor applies regardless of how long someone needs care for. There's no financial incentive to help out for a year. I agree that is wrong, but I don't have a solution to it.

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.

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?

Insurers won't insure people where there is a significant risk of having to pay out, or if they do insure them then the premiums will be prohibitively expensive. Insurance is gambling, and insurance underwriters don't tend to be reckless gamblers.

If you're an obese smoker with a family history of heart failure, you'll be able to get the insurance. Of course you will, there's a good chance you'll be dead long before you need it. But if you're healthy but with a family history of living to 102 with dementia, the cost of the insurance is going to be astronimical, because chances are you will need it long before you die.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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.

It's an argument, but I will counter that with - unless you are super-rich - 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?

If people followed that principle we would be back to square one....where's the money coming from? OK, if they are spending as they go along then they will be providing VAT (a valid argument) BUT a large chunk will go overseas (holidays) and to foreign landlords (overseas again) if we play the German rules and become a nation of renters.

So for every plausable answer, there's a negative. And again, if they can't provide an inheritance then there will be no family member willing to care for them at home, so how many nursing home places can we build? And if people haven't saved and bought property - who will pay??

Also, suppose someone has bought property abroad, lived in it and then come home to be nursed? What then? How can our councils access foriegn properety even if it's owned by a Brit....after all we won't be even in the EU so that avenue's gone.

Think we need a mixture of
(a) an affordable state insurance plan as above and/or
(b) 1 or 2% extra tax on the top earnings
(c) better allowance and more rights (ie hours of state-covered leave) for family carers
(d) if we are reducing the inheritance levels then we must allow those who have cared a greater amount (say 50k for every year) to prevent the loss of carers in the first place, and if the carer has only the home of the deceased to live in, then that certainly isn't taken to pay the extra fees.
(e) a tax on sugary and salty - unhealthy - foods/drinks paid directly tot he NHS
 
Last edited:

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,685
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
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).
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Just seen a social media post from Robert Peston from a few days ago where he mentions his surprise that the Lib Dems have mentioned removing the benefits freeze but Labour have not.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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).

The good news is..there's a discussion.

It's been buried under the pillow for years, and although I hate May and all she stands in the kitten heels for, at least her total cock-up has brought the previously unsaid to No.1 in the conversation rankings, so for that I thank her.

After this horrible break in proceedings, when the election returns I hope it is still No1 topic for discussion/argument and we can get some answers from May.

As for the young feeling shafted...we all die, we all will need help to some degree when old, so we have to start paying for it.

It's just a pity those who pay nowt get it all.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
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.

How many people do you think fall into this category and just how much do you think we're spending on them?!

Taking 14/15 (because the ONS has a nice chart :lol:) the UK Government spent £3bn on unemployment benefits. That's it! £3bn! If you include the spend on Housing benefit (which people who are working can claim), Tax Credits, Child Benefit (again a lot of those claiming both Child Benefit and Tax Credits will be working) and Income Support the total comes £74bn (£27bn Housing Benefit, £44bn Tax Credits, Child Benefit and Income Support and £3bn on unemployment).

Now this a much chunkier lump of change (but don't forget that an awful lot of the money being spent will be going to people who are in work) but it is still less than we spend on, for example, State Pensions (£108bn) and less than a third of the entire welfare budget (£258bn).

So I'm sorry to be sure such people exist but to say they're 'bleeding the system'? There are much much bigger fish to fry before we start worrying about them. For example people and organisations who avoid/evade paying their taxes?

Not even benefit fraud is that expensive overall to be said to be 'bleeding the system' (compared to tax avoidance/evasion) the Guardian from around a year ago:

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.

But of course they 'pay nowt' because they have nowt to pay with!
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,305
Location
Isle of Man
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?

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.

(e) a tax on sugary and salty - unhealthy - foods/drinks paid directly tot he NHS

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 ;)

It's just a pity those who pay nowt get it all.

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.
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
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.
Sugary foods, it would help if we got kids hooked on fags at primary school (just like half my class....) <D
But deliberately getting shut of money is a vexed point. Yes, that's illegal if it's to get social care etc.
But where's the line drawn?
If someone reaches retirement they they damned well deserve a world cruise, a spanking new car, a nice £1500 video camera and so on. Their money they've earned spent IMO wisely.
With my insurace plan, they could also buy that care annuity....
Clearly giving £200k as a gift to your fave grandson would be looked on suspiciously....but what if he were marrying a lovely girl and but had just lost his job due to government cuts and needed a bit of help to buy a house?
Where do you draw the line??
Again, every silver lining has a cloud.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
Interesting to see that UKIP want's to get on with the election:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-40026416

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.

I'm sure that they have a take on the cause of the attack on Monday that fits their agenda. They will have to remember though that the perpetrator was a UK citizen, born in Manchester.

p.s. It's comforting to see that discussion in this thread has resumed so promptly.
 

KN1

Member
Joined
19 Mar 2017
Messages
101
UKIP are doing the right thing, ridiculous to stop the election for more than a day.
We keep hearing people say we won't change and things go on as normal so let them.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
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.

If social care was paid for by the state out of general taxation everyone would be a little bit 'poorer' but no-one would have to play the Russian roulette that exists today.

I don't like taxing capital assets because it effectively forces people to eternally tread water on a treadmill just to support state consumption.
 

AM9

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2014
Messages
14,191
Location
St Albans
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.

£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.
A large proportion of the population manages to get through their life without an inheritance, so it is hardly an 'essential'.

I don't like taxing capital assets because it effectively forces people to eternally tread water on a treadmill just to support state consumption.

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.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Will the election date also be postponed?

Only if there aren't enough police to man the stations. It has happened before, Tony Blair and his foot-in-mouth disease election, although whether that refers to Gordon Brown is debatable.
Was changed from May to June.
*Note if it is, the Gorton could be the longest wait for a by-election ever!
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
£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.
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.

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.

So we should means test all state support then? The same argument applies there as here.
Only poor people should recieve NHS care, only poor people should be entitled to state funded education, only poor people should be permitted to contributory Jobseekers allowance etc etc.

And since the state grants itself the power to forcibly confine people to old peoples homes "for their own good" - there is no option for people with dementia or alzheimers to refuse care. Then the state will start forcibly seizing your assets to pay for something you didn't want or ask for.

Otherwise known as taxation.
Will the election date also be postponed?

Only if Theresa May believes she can derive political advantage from doing so.
 
Last edited:

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,029
Will the election date also be postponed?

I think you'll find that the circumstances under which the General Election could be 'postponed' are extremely circumscribed, even allowing for us not having a written constitution. I can't imagine that we are anywhere near reaching those conditions, unless we are about to declare war on someone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top