Bemused over Labour reaction to Tory manifesto pledges

[cathf]

Three in particular.
Changes to social care rules meaning £100,000 is ringfenced, ending of free school meals for all infants and means testing for pensioner's winter fuel payment
I don't understand why Labour are so against these pledges.
Surely the whole tenet of Labour's policy is supporting poorer families while taking away unneeded support for wealthier families?
At the moment, we have a situation where millionnaire pensioners get the winter fuel payment, wealthy offspring can inherit huge estates while their parents have been looked after at the state's expense and families can earn too much to claim Child Benefit, yet are entitled to free school meals.
None of the above makes sense, yet Labour (and its supporters) are arguing these policies are unfair and should be retained.
How can someone earning £80k be so 'rich' they have to pay more tax, yet can still claim free school meals?
Or is it a case of Labour fighting against anything the Tories pledge, regardless of the hypocracy?

Labour want benefits to be universal to ensure people pay the taxes required to fund their lunacy policies.
If you can opt out of state education for your children, then you will resent paying more tax to fund state school education.
They are also control freaks, providing a universal service of what they want prevents people having a choice. People with no choice cannot make an incorrect choice. Labour believes its voters are idiots and need protecting by the state from their own stupidity.

Because the wealthiest people with large valuable estates are a) less likely to require social care to the level it meaningfully erodes their estate. People who have acraped by, managed to own their home and then require long term care will now have nothing to pass on to the relatives who have probably been providing most of the care at a financial detriment. The Tories themselves have suggested young people should have inheritance from grandparents to assuage with getting on the property ladder but this will become less likely.

Unwell elderly people will worry a great deal about being a burden and feel better off dead which is utterly vile.

When you means test people there is less take up so pensioners in need will be less likely to apply for the fuel benefit even if they need it.

We have among the highest childhood obesity stats in the world - at least one healthy meal a day for all children is no bad thing in my opinion.

Take away enough from the wealthy and they'll start wondering what the point is paying taxes. Universal benefits are also cheap too administer and as pointed out already means nobody who needs it will miss out.

It looks to me like they are scraping the barrel to try to come up with justifications to oppose the policies.
Be honest, if Labour had come up with the idea of scrapping universal winter fuel allowance and free school meals , they would have been praised by their supporters, would they not?

No.

Freezing pensioners and starving kids is a Tory policy.

Freezing pensioners and starving kids is a Tory policy.
jesus fucking wept.

Right.
So wealthier pensioners will freeze and wealthier parents will let their kids starve.
OK, if you say so.

Freezing pensioners and starving kids is a Tory policy.
jesus fucking wept.

Well I mean prima facie...they are talking about turning the heat off and shutting down the kitchen...

It's because people (at least the aged 30 and under on my social media) think that Tories want the free school meals taken away from ALL children. They're spreading misguided propaganda

Of course its left wing propaganda and partisan attacks, the left has acted like a bunch of immature brats in reaction to loosing power within Britain and the United States. They were warned that lurching to the far left after the electorate rejected centre left politics would kill their power base and they still did it, now they are having to invent conspiracy theories from MI5, Russians, media manipulation etc to try and explain away their massive unpopularity with the average blue collar family.

I think the situation is even more highlightable in the United States. I always remember Democrat Senator Henry Reid lying on the senate floor about Mitt Romeny not paying taxes, when questioned about it after Obama's win his response was 'well he didn't win did they?' now the American left (who have compared every single Republican President to Adolf Hitler since Bush senior) is trying to use the exact same tactics to undermine Trump and force him to release his private tax records as Romney did. Not to mention accusing him of colaboration with Russia because their attempt to rig the democratic primaries was exposed (something they are no longer even trying to deny).

The left is trying to use a 'by any means neccessary' approach to try and stop their decline across the West and that includes trying to make centre right civic nationalist parties look like baby eating KKK members.

Even lord sugar has deserted the Labour Party.
Free school meals was brought in in September 2014 under the coalition government it was the Lib Dems that wanted it

The winter fuel allowance - Lord Sugar Jeremy Corbyn Pippa Middleton's dad all all in the house of lords can claim it... Why

Social care for the elderly before this manifesto anyone who went into care had to sell their house to pay for it and they were left with £23,000. Now everyone will have £100,000 to leave to their children the reason pensioners have the money in property is because of rising house prices
How else are we going to pay for our ageing population? Before this manifesto if you had more than 23000 you had to pay now for the less well off pensioners they don't pay anything unless it's over £100,000

Under Jeremy Corbyn he will borrow and make the deficit huge which will eventually backfire and cripple the country with debt. Or do as Gordon Brown did and sell the rest of our gold at rock bottom prices to raise money.

The country is not a bottomless pit of money and yet labour seems to think that it is

I thought the same, OP. The poor, means-tested pensioners who won't get their measly winter fuel allowance are exactly the same 'rich' that Labour wants to tax to there and back. Crazy inconsistency.

Labour are under the deluded opinion that they can pay for their absurd level of spending by massive tax rates of the rich. As though they are going to keep their money in the country and not offshore or hide their investments, buisness operations or even emigrate entirely if neccessary.

They bleat on about corporate welfare of the Tories ignorant that governments take in higher net taxes with a lower tax rate as it deincentivises tax avoidance and tax evasion. Wilful ignorance is the Labour manifesto summed up in two words.

If you want to know why, listen to today's any questions on radio 4, they put their reasoning across fairly clearly...whether you agree with it or not is a different thing, but it was clear enough.

I am a labour voter and I like the Labour manifesto but I agree with you OP. I think these are good sensible policies.

Tabu, I heard Any Questions, it was that I was referring to when I said they were scraping the barrel trying to find ways to justify opposing the pledges.
Yet, I am certain if Labour had produced the same plans, their supporters would be hailing it as a victory for common sense, which it is.
People are essentially selfish, as was proved by Any Answers afterwards. Everyone thinks the problems should be tackled but everyone thinks someone else should pay for it.
It's easy to take a 'moral' point of view when you stand to gain from any changes, but not so easy to put yourself in the shoes of the people being asked to foot the bill.
So, if Labour need to raise shedloads of cash for their pledges and they are not prepared to take payments from wealthy pensioners and families, just where will the line be drawn?
Because it makes so sense to raise tax for people earning over £80k pa yet still feed their children for free, does it?

Well the point they were making is that universal benefits mean that they reach those that need them and those that don't need them lose it at taxation point.

I don't agree with most universal benefits, but it's not illogical.

as though they are going to keep their money in the country and not offshore or hide their investments, buisness operations or even emigrate entirely if neccessary.

We all contribute.

These super rich benefit from society. Multi national companies are here because our stable society allows them to profit. Not because they want to spread their coffee around the world for goodwill.

They can contribute a little too. At least something.

Under Jeremy Corbyn he will borrow and make the deficit huge which will eventually backfire and cripple the country with debt. Or do as Gordon Brown did and sell the rest of our gold at rock bottom prices to raise money.

How have the Tories got on with reducing the deficit over the last 7 years?

rale124 Has anyone demanded to see Trump's birth certificate yet?

Unpleasantness is really not confined to the 'left'.

The problem with the social care policy is that yes £100,000 of your assets are going to be ringfenced instead of the current £23,000,BUT, and this is the important bit that some people aren't grasping, instead of being charged for care if you require residential care, i.e. needing to be cared for in a home etc, your assets are going to be taken into consideration if you need care in your own home, i.e. A home help a couple of times a day etc.
This is a major change and means that many many more elderly people will be paying for their own care through their home.

But surely the new care rules would mean a massive new level of beaurocracy needed to implement it? I'm not against it btw, and think that the fuel supplement should be means tested across the whole population, fuel poverty isn't just the preserve of the elderly whose income is triple locked anyway.

It is interesting that none of the Tories' policies come up against the second level of "well how are they going to afford that?" as Labour's tbh. I guess the general perception is that the Tories are fiscally responsible and Labour aren't, and that perception rests purely on rhetoric and cuts, and not actually on the test of history.

I doubt if you're "bemused" OP.

Very well actually, Rdoo. Deficit is down to 52billion under their watch.

This is a major change and means that many many more elderly people will be paying for their own care through their home.

^ exactly this. They give with one hand and massively take away with the other. It's a policy that will not affect them or their rich mates basically. And social care could be better funded through better taxation of the super wealthy as well as dealing with tax evasion.

It feels like a horribly interfering/violating policy, that is going to be implemented by some fat cat out to make a killing insurance companies. There is always someone who is laughing all the way to the bank and it's never the working / middle classes. There is nothing the government can't take apparently. And inheritance tax already takes account of the re-distribution need. But they've increased the threshold with that .

I hope this backfires on the Tories massively.