Earl Aelfheah

Mays performance on Andrew Neil show is appalling

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > you forgot ...those that own a home Yep, that's true. Anyone who owns a house or has an estate of more than ?100k will have it taken after their death, (only) if they are unlucky enough to die of a drawn out, degenerative illness. So a form of deferred privatisation. The other way to provide social care would be through a system of progressive taxation during people's lives, which pays for public health provision.

The 'dementia tax' isn't progressive nor a tax. It's a deferred charge for a service..effectively a deferred privatisation of social care. It's the removal of publically funded social care provision for those unlucky enough to develop a slow degenerative illness in old age.

If only foxes and infants read the Daily Mail, we might get a couple more policy u turns.

Wait for the third runway.

The sign said something about it becoming 'A Fabulous Little Place' (or something like that), which the way it was written gave the impression that this might literally the name of the new venture. I hope not, or I will never visit on principle.

ruffers Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > THERESA MAY: > "Remain. No. Wait. Leave." > "No election. No. Wait. Election." > "Care costs. No. Wait. Costs cap." > "Strong and stable. No. Wait." > > Credit - Theresa May's 9 U-Turns https://www.ft.com/content/e021c208-3ede-11e7-9d56-25f963e998b2

When I first moved over the hill from Camberwell, one of the first things I witnessed on Lordship Lane was a child having a full on melt down, screaming "I WANT A BABYCHINO!". It was one of those 'we not in Kansas anymore' moments.

...with shrieks of 'fake news' directed at Corbyn.

May's just u-turned on social care.

The cash only policy wasn't great. Kind of kills 'spur of the moment' / spontaneous pop ins.

this Tories government have caused us to crash out of Europe and with a mother term will no doubt oversee the break up of the UK. History will judge how 'strong and stable' they've been for the country. Our kids are going to be poorer and have fewer opportunities than we did.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where's the cost of Brexit in that list? Labour > aren't reversing it so the ?60bn that's been > quoted by Hammond needs to be accounted for > somehow... The Conservatives figures were much more thorough. Except of course they didn't have any.

'I like Corbyn's policies but how is he going to pay for it'

Although... I do think this forum could usefully merge with the West Dulwich one to cover the wider Dulwich area. Having a separate East and West Dulwich forum does seems a little parochial.

The Conservative manifesto leaves little wiggle room when it comes to Brexit - it makes it clear that the UK will leave the customs union as well as the single market. Again setting an arbitrary and repeatedly missed target to bring down immigration to under a hundred thousand is just stupid, with the commitment to make it more difficult for International students to come and study in the UK being particularly self defeating. International students bring billions into the UK economy and are a great source of future UK 'soft power' in the world. The insistence on expanding selective schooling, despite evidence that it does nothing to promote social mobility is just an example of poor, dogmatic policy making. All in all, it's rather depressing. I cannot see how any of this is going to promote an outward looking, meritocratic, 'Global Britain'.

Making it more difficult to recruit international students is completely dumb and self defeating. The only possible reason I can see for it is xenophobia. I would love to hear why others think it could be a good idea though.

"No politician in history...has been treated worse or more unfairly". He actually, literally, said this. In a speech. In real life. Not as a joke. Without irony. Honestly. This happened.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 50s? More Victorian era... 1850's perhaps?

Labour it is suggested, would 'take us back to the 1970's' with renationalisations. The Tories on the other hand, would prefer the 1950's with grammar schools and fox hunting and girls jobs and boys jobs.

... and he manifesto http://www.labour.org.uk/index.php/manifesto2017

Here's the funding statement: http://www.labour.org.uk/page/-/Images/manifesto-2017/Funding%20Britain%27s%20Future.PDF

I believe they're talking about bringing services into public ownership at the end of the existing franchises and that the services will bring money back into the exchequer (as with the east coast line). The borrowing is for a ?250 billion fund for investment in infrastructure ? transport, energy systems, communications ? scientic research, and housing.