To consider the Conservatives' manifesto pretty decent on the whole?

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Pretty decent in terms in principles, that is ... as so often with manifestos it's too thin on costings

Main points here: www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311

Full version here: www.conservatives.com/manifesto

Just seen this on Twitter Apparently someone from the City was approached months ago about an "insurance product"

Any other 'source' other than from a Corbynite

Truth is until the detail is out now one knows.

*no

"So if we have a child looking after an aged parent in a house worth £1m. That parent dies so are we really saying that the child has the right to stay in the house, do they then pass it onto their children, what about step children, people who aren't married and so it goes on."

My ex was one of nine. NINE! And only one of the nine did any caring for their elderly father.

She lived with him

And the others were moaning that she was going to get the house yet didnt lift a finger to help. Just moaned when they thought she was doing it wrong.

Why the fuck should carers get the piss taken out of them and get USED and THEN end up homeless.

The national percentages (and polls measuring them) have nothing to do with the distribution of seats in a first past the post system. Jeremy Corbyn will probably argue that if he gets a greater percentage of the national vote than Miliband, he is more popular. Just as when Theresa May gets a landslide, she will present it to the EU as a massive mandate for her policies. Neither are credible. People not voting Lib Dem does not mean Remainers aren't angry or that Lib Dem policies are not popular but that there may be a better chance of ejecting a Tory by voting Labour. Who knows. I'm a remainer and I'm still really angry.

Piglet why would that be a Corbynite? Equity release insurance (and surely the paying for care with your house is a variation of that) has been around for yonks.

(Knew I was right about insurance). Don't mind me just eavesdropping. (Smile)

Equity release insurance (and surely the paying for care with your house is a variation of that) has been around for yonks.

I know it has. No one knows much about this policy though other than you get to keep 100k. I think the confusion for some is in that there are so many theories of what might happen floating around when the only thing we 'know' is the 100k.

Surely the government will take over any equity type of insurance to make sure they get the money for your care?

fluffydogs I'm so very sorry about your diagnosis

I don't know. It is something that DH is going to look at when the policy details are released.

Unfortunately my heath means that I won't get to retirement age.

Surely the issue is not that people 'get to keep 100k' but that if they have (at least) 100k, they are totally on their own in terms of sorting out and paying for care! Only when they are down to their last 100k will the government step in with financial assistance. And the proposal is not just residential care (where the means to pay through an owned home is taken into consideration now), but will also apply for non-residential care (where the means test is currently on savings 14k?). It's a huge change however the detail or insurance system used works out. It sounds a lot, 100k, but in care terms it's not, especially for Alzheimers etc. It's so unpredictable and people are living longer.

So sorry to hear that piglet ( hugs and kisses from me) xxxc

YABU - it's shit and I hope the Tories lose.

But what's in the manifesto is as nothing on the shit-scale compared to what the effects of Brexit will be. That scores 110% on the Utter Shit scale.

You have hit the nail on the head citroen. That is what I have been trying to put across to people. The Government will never pay an exorbitant amount if money for care hence the present cap on care in your own home. By removing the cap but taking your assets over 100k into account they don't care how much your care cists till as you say you are down to your last 100k. Then you will find that care in your home will not be an option because the council who are responsible for care will not he able to afford it being as May has no intention of increasing the budget for social care.

Elgwyn yep it's all rubbish.

That is why I said a long while ago on this thread you will never get the 100k and this change in social care is the first step to privatising social care. People will have to take out insurance if they want to stay till death in their own homes to pay for exorbitant care costs ( at the moment for 24 hour care for 1 carer about 135 grand a year.) A residential would be about 50 grand a year. When you are completely out if money you will rely solely on the council for care who cannot afford care in the home.

No point in anyone worrying needlessly now. What May says she will do and what she really does are two different things. Wish everyone well for tonight and the future and sorry about my rants, it's because I care about everyone, rich or poor. I just want a fair and equal society which is like a pie in the sky dream of mine xx

So much virtue on this thread, 😇

Leaving our six kids £100k between them is not what we had planned.
At the moment your house is untouched if you can manage your decline in old age by getting someone in to help you get up in the morning, do a bit of shopping and put you to bed. You pay for it from your income on a sliding scale. It was only if you had to go into private residential care that the value of your house came into the calculation, if money ran out it had to be sold to pay for the costs but they were capped at about 75k. If you get a long term illness like dementia you could need care for 20 years. Better to take a trip to Switzerland I think.
Other thing that occurs to me is what about children who live with their parents. Do we sell their house out from under them when mum n dad die? They may have illness and disability also.

It might not be what you had planned but what other suggestions do you have, really?

they are totally on their own in terms of sorting out and paying for care!

This seems to be the case. I don't know. It seemed simple at first but is falling apart.

Here is a document from Labour listing all of these instances when Conservatives said something but did another.

www.labour.org.uk/page/-/PDFs/One%20Tory%20manifesto%20two%20years%20of%20failure%2050%20broken%20promises.pdf

I feel like with Jeremy's Labour - all of his views aren't popular, like vegetarianism - but he says what his intentions are.

The libdems are good too.

nursy so under your plans your six kids and their friends get to pay for your care in order to ensure your kids get a larger inheritance? What about those that will never get an inheritance? Is that OK? Or is it better that we use the assets we have to pay for the care we need and accept that sometimes we won't get to leave the next generation as much as we had hoped. In the meantime however that next generation are not burdened with the cost of caring for an aging population.

Perhaps homeby, but why all of this uncertainty?

Better to take a trip to Switzerland I think.

See it's these kind of attitudes that concern me. Better to take a trip to dignitas so the vulnerable elderly people don't waste too much of the states money or time, or their own money indeed, if they live longer than necessary.