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?

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

Well it was £103 billion in 2010 and it's now £14 billion as of March...

But thinkiamgoingcrazy, are the left not against inherited wealth?

Maybe cathf - I am not speaking on their behalf and won't be voting for them or the Tories in June.

The point about this new death tax is that the wealthy will not be anywhere near as affected as the average working person.

Tory Debt is soaring.

Because the Labour Party would rather have more people receiving state benefits, they think it makes them more likely to vote for them. What they could have done instead of tax credits - which were introduced as giving you back some of the tax you have paid - is made employers pay a decent wage. Instead far more people now receive benefits and we subsidised employers.
Care has to be paid for. Why should our taxes go to subsidise someone else's inheritance? I do worry somewhat about the means testing of the winter fuel allowance as some poorer pensioners won't claim it but they could pay to everyone and claw it back from those that they deem to be "wealthier".

The argument that anything will benefit the wealthy down more than the poorer is lazy left-wing rhetoric.
You could use that argument against any policy, as by the very nature of having more money, you are always going to be cushioned from any cuts, no matter what they are.
As for the winter fuel allowance, I also don't buy the argument that the poorest would not apply. People have to take responsibility. You can't make a policy decision on the grounds that some won't apply so it should be paid to everyone.
By that logic, we should all get housing benefit and tax credits, because some of the most needy would not apply.

The argument that anything will benefit the wealthy down more than the poorer is lazy left-wing rhetoric.

If you say so.

I think the £100k thing is quite a left-wing policy. For example, our lovely neighbour died recently. In the last three or so years, his house has gone up in value from £300k to over £400k (south east). He had care workers coming every day, three or four times a day, for a couple of years, funded by the taxpayer. His children have just sold, making maybe £50k over the last year (after capital gains) while not funding his care at all. That doesn't seem right to me, especially as they sold to a property developer to get the maximum amount, when a young couple had really wanted it.

Some people on the left are against inherited wealth, the left and right aren't monoliths but vague catchall terms. The US left is only slightly left of UK Tories on most issues and actually quite right of them on others.

Also, some well off and wealthy parent let their kids starve. Whether through an inability to cope, lack of caring, or using money and food as punitive control measures, it happens and with the systems as they are, it's difficult to deal with. That's why so many want equal rights for kids in schools & community to basics because you can't tell by a parent's bank account or income how well they care for their kids.

I had an elderly relative who was kept at home when she shouldn't have been because the locust relatives didn't want her equity "wasted" on care homes instead of going to them, they put tremendous pressure on the main carer to keep her at home and made it sound like pure evil to send her to a care home.

Though, last laugh on the nasty relatives, elderly relative changed her will long ago to cut them out. Still, the system gave a perverse incentive to keeping relative at home when that wasn't best for her or her carers.

I'm glad the funding/incentive factor has been removed from the decision.

Rdoo. It was £103 billion in 2013 after the last labour government and is now down to £15 billion.
I think you need to educate yourself the difference between deficit and debt