Thread 2 Burnham : Coragem e Esperança.

[DuncinToffee]

Welcome to our long running thread for political discussion, general chit chat, a friendly hug and taxes in kind

🍦 for anyone who needs them

New PM, new thread title, the discussion continues.

Previous thread
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/_chat/5556659-thread-1-burnham-esperanza-en-cada-corazon?page=40

https://archive.ph/F9rse

Burnham previously discussed a levy on over-65s when last in government.

There would be huge push back on this. Most of the people I know would prefer the current lottery and bet on not needing care.

The thing is that most people who are above state pension age and who have the health to go on holiday would shore up their holiday insurance and get the GHIC card, to cover themselves, wisely so. There's also excellent uptakes on vaccinations to prevent flu and or shingles. eta obviously vaccines may not prevent, but having it lessens the symptoms.

A levy on those who can afford it, income based only, is wise imho.

Hell of a gamble.

You can go from zero to needing 24/7 care in months. As happened to my DM. 3 years of that until the angels sang.

Meantime, whatever is in he water may be in the air .... with the self-aware caveat that my feed will be algorithmically driven, all I have seen so far are negative Farage stories. The has been a sea change somewhere.

I would happily pay a levy. It could be a sort of NI for the retired.

You'd have to make sure it was hypothecated and the benefits are very visible.

My DPs would have willing paid more tax in the 70s if they could have had confidence it would actually do something.

50 years on, and why the fuck would anyone pay more tax, looking at the horlicks of failed PPE, HS2, councils going bust. The black hole that is "defence" ? All in a country where the potholes outnumber the people and it's an aspiration to die on a trolley in a hospital corridor rather than freeze to death at the next cold snap.

Is the sort of thing some people might be thinking. Even if they can't articulate it.

I'm not terribly keen on a system that disportionately benefits the most wealthy, which the proposal appears to.

Unfortunately everything else is set up that way.

Thanks Blossom.

"Most of the people I know would prefer the current lottery and bet on not needing care."

Yes. But! A lot of people don't seem to recognise that it is a lottery and one which, if they lose out, will be very expensive. Hence the shock horror regarding the costs.

I don't know how we should tackle it. There are some interesting options that other countries have implemented which should be explored.

But I am absolutely furious that any political party is dicking around talking about boats and the ECHR blah blah blah WITHOUT having a social care policy.

Reform and the Tories are all in on issues which make fabulously aggressive, figure pointing, shouty headlines but fuck all on social care issues which have a far wider impact both to the individual and to the country's health and well being (see NHS) and therefore productivity and everything else.

Lazy twats.

I know. I don't mind the 10%, but I have a huge problem with inherited wealth and if its replacing IHT, that's a backwards step.

Was quite interested by Schapps being dumped by the Tories - either he was hoisted by previous comments OR he stuck to his guns and admitted that leaving the ECHR and abandoning Net Zero is a cheap bit of political theatre that will alienate a swathe of Tory voters and won't be enough to attract the Reform switchers.

Rees Mogg has reapplied and given he's all over fossil fuels (Somerset Capital) and fracking he'll be in a shoo in.

I remember the days when the Tories were a ‘broad church’ with a wide range of views.

When anyone whines about GDP and all that nonsense, point out that in terms of wealth, wonga, mullah, call it what you will. the UK is not only minted, but much more minted than 10 years ago.

You know this to be the case because that's when the debate gets steered back to any number of the scared cows of the right. Immigration, idleness, british values etc.

Thatcher put paid to that. Easing "the wets" out one by one.

But the ‘wets’ made a comeback under Major, with Heseltine and Clarke as Deputy PM and Chancellor respectively, though he was constantly undermined by ‘the bastards’ on the right.

It was Johnson who really culled the One Nation Tories from the party.

Meanwhile Andy has made a strong start in terms of listening to and acting on concerns, and is cementing his reputation as people's candidate, so presenting a real alternative.
Don't want to jinx it, but so far things are going to plan!

I totally disagree with this. It is your opinion and should be presented as opinion. The confusion between opinion and fact is something prevalent amongst the last tory governments, reform and those further to the right. Lets not start with the unhelpful propaganda rhetoric. Especially in this thread.

I have more time for Thatcher because when it came to science and her beliefs, the science won out. Hence the UKs world leading AIDS programme, and the UKs membership of the EEC.

I agree. That’s my main objection too.

Which is why a lot of posters on this thread reject Toryism and the right wing hymn of self and greed.

Grandmothers and eggs, Jane.

Mumphschlphst 😀

How about, unless I say "evidence shows.." you just assume I'm presenting my opinion rather than fact?
Because last time I checked, i was a lay person contributing on a thread for sharing opinions as well as facts, not a member of the erstwhile Tory government or a right wing propaganderist peddling lies to the gullible.
And it seems unecessarily onerous to have to say "In my opinion.." every time, just in case people don't realise that my opinion is just my opinion.

I agree. And I think that was an unnecessarily harsh post @Llttledrummergirl

That’s so true, it’s very much what I object to strongly.

I agree too. Could we put to bed the abrasiveness that has suddenly appeared here? To quote MN it’s not in the spirit.