The Bloke On Who Wants To Be A...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Will June 8 Mean The End Of Labour?
89 Answers
I recall a few discussions on here about whether losing the next election would mean the end of the Labour party.
Apparently, most of the members might actually want that to happen...
http://
//
Fewer than 40 percent of respondents said the opposition party should remain in its current form and many — emboldened by Emmanuel Macron’s victory in France — see an opportunity to rebrand Labour, the Telegraph said.//
//Sixty percent said they would like to see Labour merge with the Liberal Democrats if both are defeated by the Conservatives, //
Pitifully small sample size of 500 though. Do you think this survey is representative among Labour supporters?
Apparently, most of the members might actually want that to happen...
http://
//
Fewer than 40 percent of respondents said the opposition party should remain in its current form and many — emboldened by Emmanuel Macron’s victory in France — see an opportunity to rebrand Labour, the Telegraph said.//
//Sixty percent said they would like to see Labour merge with the Liberal Democrats if both are defeated by the Conservatives, //
Pitifully small sample size of 500 though. Do you think this survey is representative among Labour supporters?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kromovaracun. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
fender; //so it would seem, best not to own a house..sell it and rent if your elderly, have last blast with your cash, if your able//
The other option is to give it your kids at least 7 years before you die (handy if you have a date) [also handy if you can trust them not to put you out on the street] but of course you won't have the cash to have that bash though
The other option is to give it your kids at least 7 years before you die (handy if you have a date) [also handy if you can trust them not to put you out on the street] but of course you won't have the cash to have that bash though
I’m musing on this and the question of paying for care is a difficult one. At the moment if care homes provide that care, houses are sold to finance it. Under the new plan, homes will not be sold before the subject is dead, with £100,000 earmarked as a legacy. The cost of care for people who remain in their own homes would be taken from the estate, the £100,000 still safe. As I see it, those families who can afford to pay for carers to come in to their elderly would inherit the whole of the estate. Those that can’t would be left with £100,000. For those families concerned that they will lose much of their inheritance, the option is to provide care at home themselves if it is at all possible. Many elderly people go into care homes either because their families are too busy to care for them, or simply because no one willing to care for them. The new proposals aren’t ideal, but when the alternative is considered, are not, in my opinion, sufficient reason to reject a Conservative government.
Yes, Naomi, that’s exactly as I see the proposal. We just had different ways of explaining it!
I was, and still am a firm ‘Brexiter’ and for this reason I will vote Conservative, as I think they are the only party who will take us out of Europe, but hope these new social care plans get so much opposition, that they have to have a rethink.
I’m still hoping that someone can explain to me how non-homeowners will be expected to fund their care.
I was, and still am a firm ‘Brexiter’ and for this reason I will vote Conservative, as I think they are the only party who will take us out of Europe, but hope these new social care plans get so much opposition, that they have to have a rethink.
I’m still hoping that someone can explain to me how non-homeowners will be expected to fund their care.
-- answer removed --
Bigbad, people are selling their property to fund care homes now. The difference in the new proposal is that property will not be required to be sold until after the subject has died, and the cost of care provided, either in a care home, or in their own homes will be deducted from the estate. In effect that means the families of those who go into homes will win because instead of inheriting nothing, as many of them do now, they’ll be left with £100,000, and families of those for whom state care is provided at home will lose because home care will no longer be free. Of course, if a family cares for the elderly relative at home, there will be no charge whatsoever, and they’ll inherit everything, as happens now. I wonder if that will make a difference to the choices families make?
State care provided at home isn’t necessarily free now, naomi.
If Social Services decide you need care, there is nothing you or your family can do about it.
They then choose and arrange a local care company. I’ve been through all of this with my Dad.
He was assessed on his income and savings, and the total he has to pay for what amounts to someone dishing out his tablets 3 times a day and chucking a microwave meal in once a day, was decided within a ‘banding.’ He has 3 half hour visits a day.
He used to have 4, but managed to ditch one as he didn’t need tablets during the fourth visit. The amount he pays, stayed the same despite him getting less visits.
It is not unusual for them to call me and expect me to drop everything and drive 40 miles on the odd occasion there has been ‘an incident.’
So I can’t help thinking this new proposal isn’t just to pay for that particular homeowners care, but to offset those that don’t contribute anything.
If Social Services decide you need care, there is nothing you or your family can do about it.
They then choose and arrange a local care company. I’ve been through all of this with my Dad.
He was assessed on his income and savings, and the total he has to pay for what amounts to someone dishing out his tablets 3 times a day and chucking a microwave meal in once a day, was decided within a ‘banding.’ He has 3 half hour visits a day.
He used to have 4, but managed to ditch one as he didn’t need tablets during the fourth visit. The amount he pays, stayed the same despite him getting less visits.
It is not unusual for them to call me and expect me to drop everything and drive 40 miles on the odd occasion there has been ‘an incident.’
So I can’t help thinking this new proposal isn’t just to pay for that particular homeowners care, but to offset those that don’t contribute anything.
Bigbad, of course it goes towards offsetting the cost of care for those who contribute nothing, but that’s part of what our taxes do in other areas too. You say “If Social Services decide you need care, there is nothing you or your family can do about it”, but there are ‘buts’ to that. Your dad lives 40 miles away, he can't manage alone and therefore it’s essential that social services are involved to arrange some sort of on-going care for him. For the elderly who live either with, or within easy reach of relatives who are willing to care for them, that doesn’t apply.
I don’t think we will ever agree on this naomi.
Whilst I think it right that Dad (and others in a similar situation) makes a reasonable contribution towards his care, I still don’t think it’s right that anyone who works all their life should face the prospect of having to spend the value of their home on actually being able to stay in it.
If I were to become ill or frail in my old age, there is absolutely no way that I would want my children to become carers for me. In fact, if the truth be told, having witnessed frailty and all that it can entail, I don’t think I would want to spend the last part of my life like that. So if that time comes ….. who knows?
I’ll say goodnight now and check back tomorrow. Won’t be until the afternoon, though - I’ve gotta go to Dads!
Whilst I think it right that Dad (and others in a similar situation) makes a reasonable contribution towards his care, I still don’t think it’s right that anyone who works all their life should face the prospect of having to spend the value of their home on actually being able to stay in it.
If I were to become ill or frail in my old age, there is absolutely no way that I would want my children to become carers for me. In fact, if the truth be told, having witnessed frailty and all that it can entail, I don’t think I would want to spend the last part of my life like that. So if that time comes ….. who knows?
I’ll say goodnight now and check back tomorrow. Won’t be until the afternoon, though - I’ve gotta go to Dads!
Bigbad, I think we do agree. Personally I think it’s our duty to care – properly – for the elderly and to afford them the dignity they deserve. If I were the decision maker all elderly people would receive the care they need free of charge, but unfortunately life doesn’t work like that because too many people want whatever they can get from the pot. As one old lady said to me, “There’s no fun in getting old” – and from what I see there isn’t. Them today – us tomorrow. God! What a horrible thought!
-- answer removed --
As I wrote in a post above, I would not write Labour off just yet.
Labour are buying the votes of the young and gullible, TM has bashed the pensioners and 'rich' sick savers at the same time as refusing to cut foreign aid and is acting to all intents and purposed lie a labour leader herself. Although she says she isnt, TM is behaving like she has won it and can do what she likes, a very foolish thing to do.
We could still see JC in No10. Not sure how long the country would last if he tried to implement all of the promises though!
Labour are buying the votes of the young and gullible, TM has bashed the pensioners and 'rich' sick savers at the same time as refusing to cut foreign aid and is acting to all intents and purposed lie a labour leader herself. Although she says she isnt, TM is behaving like she has won it and can do what she likes, a very foolish thing to do.
We could still see JC in No10. Not sure how long the country would last if he tried to implement all of the promises though!
June the 8th will not mean the end of Labour as a political party.Hopefully,if they are defeated,we will see the end of people like Diane Abbott,Emily Thornberry and John Macdonell ,not forgetting the dozy Angela Rayner.This is the Labour party that people see and why they will lose.It is sad they don't have the calibre of people of years ago such as Denis Healey,Jim Callaghan and so on because if they did the election would definitely be winnable.
youngmafbog, Do you really think the electorate is that stupid? Labour has made promises that, to anyone with any sense at all, are clearly impossible to fulfil. I wouldn’t like to hazard a guess at what they’d really do given the opportunity. Theresa May has told the truth about plans for elderly care, and bearing in mind that people have to sell their houses now to fund care homes, often leaving their families with absolutely nothing to inherit, and they already pay for care within their own homes, I don’t think the panic-stricken have really thought this through.
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the Conservative manifesto has a far greater number of uncosted policies than the Labour one does - in fact there is remarkably little costing in the Conservative manifesto at all.
Furthermore senior Tories are constantly getting figures seriously wrong but nobody throws a tantrum about it because it's not Labour...
http://
This one from Nick Ferrari, the same presenter who slaughtered Diane Abbott on figures:
http://
Sitting home secretary gets the current salary of police officers wrong:
https:/
Furthermore senior Tories are constantly getting figures seriously wrong but nobody throws a tantrum about it because it's not Labour...
http://
This one from Nick Ferrari, the same presenter who slaughtered Diane Abbott on figures:
http://
Sitting home secretary gets the current salary of police officers wrong:
https:/
Kromo; // ...the Conservative manifesto has a far greater number of uncosted policies than the Labour one does//
The costing for labour is quite straight forward, according to the FT it is simple based on borrowing 60 billion pounds ; https:/
The costing for labour is quite straight forward, according to the FT it is simple based on borrowing 60 billion pounds ; https:/
Having got this far with Brexit it would matter little who was heading up Labour, their 'anti return control of our own nation to ourselves' stance means they couldn't be trusted to govern over the next term. (Although I do wonder if any of them can, especially as UKIP won't win a majority.) What they need to ensure is that they are in a position to reverse or improve any domestic Tory misrule next time.
Trouble is both main parties don't correct, they just add their layer of unwanted impositions on top.
Meanwhile I still think the election will result in a small increase of Tory seats, and probably wasn't worth doing; but I can see it resets the 5 year term.
Trouble is both main parties don't correct, they just add their layer of unwanted impositions on top.
Meanwhile I still think the election will result in a small increase of Tory seats, and probably wasn't worth doing; but I can see it resets the 5 year term.
Your link does not refer to borrowing.
While you've brought it up, though, let's inspect the two parties records on borrowing:
http://
http://
While you've brought it up, though, let's inspect the two parties records on borrowing:
http://
http://
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.