Ask the Chancellors C4 8.0

[badgerx16]

Which gives Major even more credibility.

 

Major had to beat Douglas Hurd (a true statesman) and Heseltine (one of the tory heavyweights who defeated Thatcher). It was like a Saints vs Man U + Liverpool cup final.

 

Brown got through on a pools panel score draw.

But Dune's post #46 makes the point that at the preceding election, the result put New Labour with Tory Bliar in charge into Government, the electorate had not given Gordy a mandate as leader. This is exactly the same situation as John Major, the previous election had put Maggie in No 10, not the Grey Man.

[dune]

Major had to beat Douglas Hurd (a true statesman).

 

I've met Douglas Hurd - true story. If only all politicians were like him.

[Wes Tender]

Does it? Its a sad day when the only thing their opponents appear to be saying is vote for us because we are not them! Have they not heard of the phrase out the frying pan and into the fire? Just because the tories are not labour does not make them better. They should be trying to prove they will be better not giving themselves a hernia jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon. We will cut the deficit, no wait a minute we will cut taxes (lets not mention the inheritance tax cuts for the very wealthy we have already proposed even though we need every penny we can get).

 

It's time for a change is a reasonable standpoint for the electorate to take. They voted in Labour based on a set of manifesto promises that they have largely failed to deliver. In particular, they tried to gain the votes of the middle classes with promises that they would not increase the tax burden on them. Having been re-elected for a second term, they have had ample time to have put in place nearly all of their policies promised since their first election into Government. If the electorate make their judgement on that basis, it could easily be construed quite reasonably that it is time for a change.

 

Please do let us mention the inheritance tax. It might have been a tax on the very wealthy when it was first introduced, but as the level at which it is levied has not been increased to keep up with inflation over many, many years, it now falls as a burden onto the shoulders of a much larger section of the population who are not wealthy, but who live in houses in expensive areas of the country. As most of these people have paid their taxes all of their lives on their income, it increasingly becomes scandalous that they have to pay this death tax too. The same thing applies to the policy of forcing the elderly to sell their houses to pay for care homes in their old age. What exactly is the point in being prudent with one's finances, paying off a mortgage, saving and being debt free and owning property if the state forces you to sell it all? I can entirely see the point in them selling up and moving abroad, as even if they have to pay for care over there, it would be much cheaper in most countries and they would have the satisfaction of knowing that those money-grabbing socialists back home couldn't get their sticky fingers onto their hard-earned dosh.

[benjii]

It's time for a change is a reasonable standpoint for the electorate to take. They voted in Labour based on a set of manifesto promises that they have largely failed to deliver. In particular, they tried to gain the votes of the middle classes with promises that they would not increase the tax burden on them. Having been re-elected for a second term, they have had ample time to have put in place nearly all of their policies promised since their first election into Government. If the electorate make their judgement on that basis, it could easily be construed quite reasonably that it is time for a change.

 

Please do let us mention the inheritance tax. It might have been a tax on the very wealthy when it was first introduced, but as the level at which it is levied has not been increased to keep up with inflation over many, many years, it now falls as a burden onto the shoulders of a much larger section of the population who are not wealthy, but who live in houses in expensive areas of the country. As most of these people have paid their taxes all of their lives on their income, it increasingly becomes scandalous that they have to pay this death tax too. The same thing applies to the policy of forcing the elderly to sell their houses to pay for care homes in their old age. What exactly is the point in being prudent with one's finances, paying off a mortgage, saving and being debt free and owning property if the state forces you to sell it all? I can entirely see the point in them selling up and moving abroad, as even if they have to pay for care over there, it would be much cheaper in most countries and they would have the satisfaction of knowing that those money-grabbing socialists back home couldn't get their sticky fingers onto their hard-earned dosh.

 

I believe that there is a Tory policy to introduce a voluntary one-off payment of (something like) £6k or £7k to cover all care required in old age.

[badgerx16]

I believe that there is a Tory policy to introduce a voluntary one-off payment of (something like) £6k or £7k to cover all care required in old age.

That will last about 3 months in a decent care home

[ecuk268]

Made me laugh this morning, that nice Mr Cameron on BBC saying that, like all of us, he had to sit at his kitchen table and work out how he could adapt his household budget in light of future tax rises.

 

Yeah, with a wife that's worth 30 million, how does he manage?

[Lord Duckhunter]

That will last about 3 months in a decent care home

 

But not everybody will need it, so the money collected off the people who dont require care will be used for the people that do. The £7,000 is just a premium to enter the scheme.

 

Do you think that the money you pay into the National Health Service is used just for you and you alone, and when you use it up it's gone?

[badgerx16]

But not everybody will need it, so the money collected off the people who dont require care will be used for the people that do. The £7,000 is just a premium to enter the scheme.

 

Do you think that the money you pay into the National Health Service is used just for you and you alone, and when you use it up it's gone?

 

Not at all, but that is a compulsory levy on all tax payers in this country; ( so that excludes most P00pey players, and a few Tory peers ). This new proposal is optional, so how many will bother ?

[Wes Tender]

Not at all, but that is a compulsory levy on all tax payers in this country; ( so that excludes most P00pey players, and a few Tory peers ). This new proposal is optional, so how many will bother ?

Yes, quite, it's a compulsory levy that most decent tax paying citizens have been paying all their lives. Most have a quite reasonable assumption that because they have paid all this tax and insurance, they will be able to gain state assistance in their twilight years should they require it, without having to sell up their home. Furthermore, should they decide to move abroad, they mostly assumed that their pension entitlement would be the same as if they carried on living here. Instead, they find that the government has moved the goalposts and will not be increasing it in line with inflation if they live abroad.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Not at all, but that is a compulsory levy on all tax payers in this country; ( so that excludes most P00pey players, and a few Tory peers ). This new proposal is optional, so how many will bother ?

 

I would pay £7,000 if it meant I didn't have to sell my home.People would have a choice to make, pay the £7,000 or dont pay it and hope they dont need the care. At the end of the day, if they dont take the option, they can hardly complain when they have to sell their house.

 

Even under a Labour Govt you wont get your care funded by the state, without additional contribution.

[Saintandy666]

Gordon Brown doesn't need a mandate from the voters. In our system, we elect an MP who represents a party. Therefore, we did not elect Tony Blair, we elected the Labour party. It's not like in America with the presidential system. If you don't like it, then go protest for reform.

[Lord Duckhunter]

 

You know exactly what pav is saying. The general public voted in the Socialists led by Tony Blair. That was the package that was voted for. Not the Socialists led by Brown.

 

Blair promised during the last election that he would "serve a full term".

 

Apart from the safe Labour seat he represents Brown has bottled every major decision he's ever had to make regrding facing elections. He pulled out of the original Labour leadership election following the death of John Smith (leading to a decade of bitterness aimed at Blair and Mandy). He then spent a decade briefing against and knocking down any other candidates in the race to follow Blair. This meant he didn't have to face a proper election for the Leadership this time round. He then bottled calling an election and has left this corrupt and lame duck parliament limp towards a full term, because he's too scared to face the voters.

[badgerx16]

I would pay £7,000 if it meant I didn't have to sell my home.People would have a choice to make, pay the £7,000 or dont pay it and hope they dont need the care. At the end of the day, if they dont take the option, they can hardly complain when they have to sell their house.

 

Even under a Labour Govt you wont get your care funded by the state, without additional contribution.

What about the millions who won't have a house to sell ? In the end, the welfare state works on altruism, all those who can will contribute something, and realistically hope that we won't get to call on it. The conundrum for governments in the next decade is an increasing proportion of the population will be over 70, so the burden of funding the tax levy will have to be met by proportionally fewer people.

 

If only the Casino Capitalists hadn't plundered the pension funds.

[Whitey Grandad]

If only the Casino Capitalists hadn't plundered the pension funds.

By that I assume you mean Gordon Brown?