to ask if any of the manifestos have changed your mind about who you will vote for?

[killerlego]

For example, someone who would have voted Conservative but will now not or are on the fence because of what is contained in the Conservative manifesto (or Labour, Lib Dem manifesto etc).

"Most people need carers at home as they get older"

No, they don't!

Dh has read them and it's clarified for him that Tory is the best party for us

As we agreed its not necessarily who is best for us that we should vote for

At the moment we are not voting tory, but dh may change his mind

It will also mean that some old people will not get the home care they need.

pinkandorangeroses They do need some home care. That either has to be from relatives or paid carers.

I have a feeling that the 'Dementia Tax' is going to be May's poll tax moment.

I really don't think it will.

Some don't like it and have said they won't vote that way because of it (although when push comes to shove I think they probably will) . Some Labour voters have said they will switch votes to them because of it. Some like our next door neighbours don't like it but see that something has to be done to social care funding and will still vote Tory.

Let's not forget the polls always tighten at this point in the election. Yhey did the same thing in the Foot Thatcher election in 1983. The Tories haven't started attack mode yet. Nor have the media.

That Sophie Ridge interview with Corbyn this morning is just the start of what is coming.

Also shocked how much the Tory's was to attack their core voters, older people with assets. It's really quite bizarre.

Firstly, they're not 'attacking' anyone.

1. The triple lock on pensions did its job. It brought pensions up to a reasonable amount.

It's now no longer needed in its current form, and a double lock is still fair, but will stop the pensions rising disproportionately as compared with the working population's income.

1. The care proposal actually increases the amount that people in residential care have 'left' from their assets to pass on to their beneficiaries (from £23k to £100k)

1. The care proposal brings care 'at home' in line with residential care.

This is necessary as the care system is in crisis & more money needs to come in from somewhere. All people receiving care will have £100k ring-fenced to pass on. (Much fairer than a cap, which would see those with less in asset worth left with far, far less than those with larger asset wealth).

Somebody needed to grasp the nettle on this one, and the Tory manifesto proposals have done just that.

I don't find it at all bizarre, rather it is to be expected.
With the prospect of a massive majority, this is the only time this sort of massive bombshell could be mooted.
The tories may get a majority in the commons, but they don't have one in the lords.
Convention dictates that the lords will not overturn or frustrate those things that were in a winning party's manifesto.

By putting these things in black & white in the manifesto, the tories may be risking the size of majority, but nonetheless - if they get in, they will have a mandate to make the changes that they would otherwise not have had.

Not the manifesto as such, but before the election was called I thought I might vote libdem at the next election. I consider myself centrist but haven't voted for them before.

No chance of my voting libdem since the announcement; they are as unelectable as ukip currently imo. As I am unlikely to vote Labour, I really hope libdem can find a way forward with a new leader at some point soon.

They think he is a lunatic because that is what the press has been saying for the last two years. Sadly people are easily influenced. Most people don't even really understand why they think this but think it's something to do with his policies.

Bollocks.

I think he's a lunatic because he is.

It is not making it fair. People in residential care no longer need a home, they are living in their home. People living in their own home will no longer own most of it. That means most will not be able to move e.g. to be close to relatives. Unless relatives live in a very cheap place where they can buy somewhere and pay all the moving costs for a £100k. It is a different situation

brasty I don't think there's much about 'old age' that's fair to be honest.

This is actually one Conservative policy that penalises wealthier pensioners rather than poorer ones and people are now up in arms that it's 'not fair'?!

Same charm

brasty, not really. You're assuming everyone grows old with a gradual decline. In fact, cononary heart disease is the no 1 killer in this country. Obviously not all of these deaths are to "old" people but many of them are. They tend to be characterised with a sudden death.

But, the most common age of death for a man in the U.K. is 85, for a woman it's 89.

Not all those old people will need care. Many will be surprisingly well given their ages.

"2. The care proposal actually increases the amount that people in residential care have 'left' from their assets to pass on to their beneficiaries (from £23k to £100k)"

It is the lack of detail on that which makes it questionable. At the moment the value of a home is not counted if a spouse is still living in it, is that still the case? If it isn't the case how are they going to protect the rights of that spouse to make decisions about their own futures for example if they want to move. I can't see anything clear in the manifesto about that.

However you feel about the fairness of paying for later life care if you need it I am sure most would want to see spouses treated fairly and not being effectively trapped in their homes while dealing with one of the most traumatic times of their lives.

We need more detail to judge for ourselves if it is fair or not.

This is actually one Conservative policy that penalises wealthier pensioners rather than poorer ones and people are now up in arms that it's 'not fair'?!

It does nothing at all for the poor.

rufus why don't you read the manifestos and make up your own mind?
It's not the law that husband and wife must vote for the same parties

Yes yes to everything charm said!

It does nothing at all for the poor.

Apart from the fact my GM could have kept her home rather than having to sell it.

Well if they have less than £23k in assets then they aren't paying for anything anyway.

If they have between £23k and £100k they are taken out of paying for anything now.

So of course it only penalises wealthier pensioners when they have to have assets over £100k to pay anything in the first place!

And also, under current rules, the value of a house is ignored if a disabled relative is living there or a relative over 60 who has been living there to care for you. Will this still be the case - it's much more than a dementia tax- it's an inheritance tax on the estates of those unfortunate enough to need care either in their own home or in residential care. How is that fair? Two widowed people with assets worth £400000- one stays fit and healthy, leaves whole estate free of tax. The other develops dementia, goes into care and their estate reduces to £100000 after care costs paid - IHT rate of 75%.

Two widowed people with assets worth £400000- one stays fit and healthy, leaves whole estate free of tax. The other develops dementia, goes into care and their estate reduces to £100000 after care costs paid - IHT rate of 75%.

That is already the case for those that have to go into residential care. In fact that keep a lot less than 100k.

pinkandorangeroses You are right that young people tend to die suddenly. Most people before they die in their 80s and older, have had some gradual decline. Even if they die of a heart attack, they often have other things wrong with them and need some help. I am in my mid 50s, and have known few people in that age bracket who have not needed care before they die. Although in a few cases a sudden stroke has put them straight into residential care.

What is more common is my FIL. Still alive in his 80s, but no longer capable of cooking, housework, having a shower by himself, or getting in and out of bed by himself. He does not need a residential home, but does need a carer. In some cases that is done by relatives.But more and more people live away from their parents.

Yes. I was voting Lib Dem but I don't like Tims views on same sex couples and abortion. I also don't trust that they won't go into coalition with Jeremy C. I don't trust Jeremy and don't like some of his views too. Shame Hilary Benn isn't the Labour Leader.

Therefore I am thinking of voting conservative.

No,everyone I know says they are voting labour and haven't changed their minds.
I think scrapping tuition fees will go alot in their favour, if this is true.
Only seen it here not read it for myself yet.

I'm appalled by the greed that is coming to the fore against the Tory care proposals. I have friends on FB (in their 50s and 60s) who all like to appear as compassionate, left-leaning types but it has shown so many people thinking that those younger folk with less good fortune than themselves, often with no chance of getting onto the property ladder themselves, should contribute to fund their care and subsidise their children's inheritances. If anything these proposals make me more likely to vote Tory as somebody has to grasp the looming crisis in care of the elderly

It's clarified my decision not to vote Conservative.

I don't like what they're doing to the NHS, but it's their policies on Education and Early Years that have really horrified me. They so clearly have no idea what they're doing and refuse to take any advice from those who do.

People complain about Labour and LibDem's policies costing money - has anyone ever considered the massive waste of money that has been going on in the Early Years while they dismantle services and policies previously put in place, then reinvent their own inferior version?

Thousands of highly experienced and trained childminders have gone. Years of experience just disappeared - and they have wasted huge amounts on pushing unpopular agencies to recruit untrained, inexperienced people to replace them, and to put out of business the independent childminders that are left.

Underfunding has caused hundreds of Early Years nurseries to fold - I heard of 2 more just this week. Again, some of these settings have been going for years and we are losing their expertise.
In their place, the Conservatives propose to put younger children in schools, wasting money that could have been used in education budgets and increasing the ratios to 1:13 (MN protested loudly enough at 1:4 ratios, but this seems to be passing without a murmur).

Schools are losing funding and teachers, many are already cut to the absolute bone. I am very worried about the education of my youngest child.

I cannot understand why people are not absolutely furious at what's being done to education and childcare in this country at the moment. Don't you all realise how poorly children are being served by this Government?

Yes I was swaying towards the Tories but absolutely not since they published their manifesto, nope, no way