Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

909 replies

Puzzledandpissedoff · 18/05/2017 15:45

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

OP posts:
I17neednumbers · 20/05/2017 20:13

"Tapping in to the massive unearned fortunes of the wealthy is much fairer."

Most of the massively wealthy already have to pay, and will still have to do so (I know, I sound a bit like a broken record.)

Fab39ish · 20/05/2017 20:15

Or the extra tax on 80k plus salaries.

Alwaysbusydoingsomething · 20/05/2017 20:15

Yes because that's fair. You realise that it isn't these really rich people that will struggle to pay for care anyway which they already have to pay for anyway. It's the working class people that this will affect the most.

Fab39ish · 20/05/2017 20:19

As far as I was aware homesteading was chargeable anyway. Both my mum who was a poor and pensioner paid the equivalent of £16 per hour for her care. Topped up my me and my siblings. It was only when FIL went palliative care owner that he got free care. But actually it wasn't free as he had to pay for travel expenses.

coconuttella · 20/05/2017 20:29

Tapping in to the massive unearned fortunes of the wealthy is much fairer.

Would you make the same argument for health or education? Surely the argument is identical... The average taxpayer pays for health and education for the rich (to use if they do choose). Should a family with children have a charge put against their home if the cost of their education is over £100k over course of their school years, just so we can make the really wealthy pay?!?

Charmageddon · 20/05/2017 20:30

At least trying to use the trillions* billions millions of pounds locked up in property to help pay for carers to look after the elderly and redistribute wealth around the country based on need not privilege is surly a good first step in the process.

I really am shocked that JC and so many people are so against this.*

Me too JamieX
But it would appear that a lot of the self-professed 'left-leaning' MNers are more concerned about their children's inheritance.

The much vaunted 'social care insurance policy' option is not something I would bother with, I'd rather take the gamble that I won't need care tbh.
And when there are many of the working poor already not paying for home contents insurance because they'd rather take the gamble that they won't need it, why on earth are posters so sure that these people would bother with social-care insurance?

Wrt the cries of 'a limit would have been better' - well, how much of a limit?

When Jezza Corbyn misunderstood the Tory proposal, he thought they'd suggested a £100k cap.
His response to this?
'Not Enough! The Tories are daft if they think £100k is enough to pay for their care!'
So - £100k is not enough according to commie Corbyn - so how much is enough?

The Tory proposal is by far the best solution I've seen so far.
The more your assets are worth, the more you need to pay yourself.
You will not be left with nothing - you will have £100k to leave to your beneficiaries.

If you don't want to do that, then unlock the tied up wealth that you have earlier - give it to your kids, go on cruises, whatever.
At least it's benefiting the economy if it's being spent.

coconuttella · 20/05/2017 20:54

But it would appear that a lot of the self-professed 'left-leaning' MNers are more concerned about their children's inheritance.

Left-leaning does not equal full on Communist, which is effectively what you are if believe inheritance is unjustifiable as some on here seem to.Wanting to pass on your average family home to your children isn't the height of right-wing dogma, it's something that 99% of those with a family home want to do. Very few people indeed with typical family homes and good relationships with their children don't leave most, if not all, of their assets to their family.

Dawndonnaagain · 20/05/2017 21:08

Charmageddon, the commie Corbyn trope was amusing at first, but it really is getting a tad jaded now.
And yes, I"m voting Labour whilst wanting to leave my children my property. In part because, well, let me think. The sale of Council House Properties. The 1989 Housing Act. Capital Receipts and the continuation of Thatcherite housing policies. Wanting to ensure my children have a place to live doesn't make me a communist any more than it makes me a Tory.

pinkandorangeroses · 20/05/2017 21:15

But it does show that our positions largely may lean one way or the other but are not set in stone.

Sostenueto · 20/05/2017 22:09

How much do people think would be a reasonable amount spent on an individuals care?

Sionella · 20/05/2017 22:16

"The more your assets are worth, the more you have to pay" - and fuck the fact that you've paid in loads more over the years?!

Sostenueto · 20/05/2017 22:29

Surely you work hard to enjoy a comfortable life in your retirement. Why then does that not include paying for your own care? If you amass a lot of assets then you can afford it, after all you want the best life in your old age that's why you worked so hard in the first place? Yes it's unfortunate if you become in need if care. But Also you may never need care so your families inheritance is safe. But why the hell should other less off people pay for your care just so your family can inherit your assets? Your families should he able to look after their own assets and their own old age. Your needs while you are alive should be covered by your own money first, your children can have what's s left. If there isn't any left tough s* they will have to fend for themselves as other adults have to who are worse off.

Fab39ish · 20/05/2017 22:50

Less well off people won't be paying for other people's care. They probably won't have put enough into the system to cover their own share of NHS education pensions etc etc.

Fab39ish · 20/05/2017 22:54

No harm in that btw. It's right that you are taxed according to your ability to pay.
Yet it is crazy to suggest that someone earning much less and receiving tax credits was somehow subsiding someone who was fortunate enough to earn a high salary and was able to buy their home etc etc.

Sostenueto · 20/05/2017 23:10

I'm talking about the people who don't get tax credits but do not earn even 80 grand a year. They will pay through taxes and they too will affected by the new changes. Don't forget that May did not say she would not put up taxes. I worked all my life on low wages. In proportion to what I earned and what taxes I paid I certainly paid in a lot and it is only the last 5 years I have had to rely on health care. I can't even get my pension for another 2 years, 6 years after I should have got it and when I do it will be £30 less than what pensioners get now and even less because the triple lock is going to be removed. I paid in to receive a pension st 60. That has been denied me. A lot of things gave been denied me by Tory governments. But never have I moaned about paying my way.

nursy1 · 20/05/2017 23:14

There is an inherent unfairness in this. If you get dementia, or heart failure and need care in your own home you will pay possibly hundreds of thousands for your care.
If you get Cancer your care will be paid for by the NHS with no loss to your heirs.
I'm taking up smoking again

Sostenueto · 20/05/2017 23:31

What about the unfairness in May taking away free school dinners then? Oh OK they can have a free breakfast instead. The only ones happy about that is people who are working getting an hours free childcare. The pupil premium kids will have to pay for a dinner because I really don't think they will survive a whole day on a bowl of cereal and/or a slice if toast. And life is tough, its a lottery what illness you may develop. I have just finished my final course if chemo I have never smoked or drank in my life yet this us the third time since I was 28 I have developed the big C and besides that I have a severe disability that appeared 5 years ago. I could feel sorry for myself and bemoan my siituation. I do not because its the luck of the draw. It's life. I do not burden the state with care my dds look after me and a.lady I pay to help. If more people did that, if more people looked after their own families less care would be needed, other countries look after their own elderly. We need to.take a leaf out if their books.

Sostenueto · 20/05/2017 23:35

PS I do not own my own home, I survive on ESA and a low care allowance which covers the cist if my lady I have in. My dds will have nothing when I die just a minimal insurance to cover my funeral. They are both poor but work on minimum wage and never ever have they expected anything upon my death.

ExplodedCloud · 20/05/2017 23:36

nursy excellent! I'm writing gin & Marlboro Red top into my care plan. I'm not entirely joking...

Sionella · 20/05/2017 23:39

But sostenueto - nobody is entitled to a free meal! It's a parent's responsibility to feed a child. They've not been taken away; they won't be provided any more, and that's actually a v different thing.

Now personally I think free school lunches are/were a very good thing, but nonetheless they are/were a privilege paid for by the tax payer, not a human right.

Puzzledandpissedoff · 20/05/2017 23:45

the commie Corbyn trope was amusing at first, but it really is getting a tad jaded now

But encouraged by the kind of people he insists on surrounding himself with, wouldn't you say?

OP posts:
ExplodedCloud · 20/05/2017 23:51

It's a parent's responsibility to feed a child. They've not been taken away; they won't be provided any more, and that's actually a v different thing.
So why provide breakfast? Why is it a Tory good thing to provide breakfast but a bad Labour thing to provide lunch?

citroenpresse · 20/05/2017 23:53

This Tory proposal is effectively warning people that they need to plan ahead because they must take responsibility for paying for your old age care. It isn't tapping into wealthy pockets - they can just afford better care. And it will be a health lottery. 1 in 10 pay 100,000 but some care bills will be a lot more than that. Some might be nothing. Because so many more people will need to start paying more for social care (three times as many people at home than in nursing homes), the government will be making savings but there's no indication that these will be passed on in terms of care policies that actually meet people's needs, not what they can afford. Old people occupying NHS beds because there is no community care is costly (and crap) policy.

HelenaDove · 20/05/2017 23:54

other countries WOMEN look after their own elderly

Corrected for you.

rubiq · 20/05/2017 23:59

kids need a hot school dinner, for many it is possibly the only meal they will have

Torys support zero hour contracts sell off the nhs to their private owned company friends and fox hunting supporting tells you everything you need to know about them tbh

Swipe left for the next trending thread