Why do you have to pay anything though? I don't see why your own house can't automatically pass down to your family.
Printable View
Why do you have to pay anything though? I don't see why your own house can't automatically pass down to your family.
I don't see what you're getting at, you complain how the Tories don't tax the rich, now it turns out that they do you'd rather no one was taxed.
I am not sure if you could class somebody that owns a house rich, Jordy but I guess the £8000 is better than having to use the whole lot although the care in the home idea sounds a lot better I feel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
You dont HAVE to pay. Its an Opt-In system whereby if you want to pay the £8000, you can and your asssets are protected from the state which means that your relatives get some inheritence and you get free residental care.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black_Apalachi
The state can NOT afford to give EVERYONE free residential care as it will cost far too much. The only reason SOME people havnt passed down their houses to their family is because they have no other way to pay for the care they need so they sold the house and gave the money needed to care for them to the state which will cost ALOT more than to opt in to the proposed system under the Conservatives and pay £8000.
No, we wouldn't be attacked first because we wouldn't pose as much of a threat to them. North Korea and Iran wouldn't just aimlessly nuke countries, it would only be if they thought we endangered them. You did however bring up a valid point, all other G8 Countries have Nuclear weapons, we are in an alliance with them, if we get Nuked then they Nuke the aggressor. If anything we are less likely to be attacked with Nuclear weapons if we dispose of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by StefanWolves
Oh, I get it now thanks x
Exactly. We're just as bad as they are for holding the weapons because they are always a threat to anyone else. Maybe if we want them to get rid of theirs, we should get rid of ours. Either way, the only reason they might attack us is because we're potentially threatening them with weapons too.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
I mean lets be clear about this. Trident is going to cost us £100,000,000,000. Now just think about how big that Number is. Its over £1600 for every man, woman and child living in Britain. Now if you'd rather see us build redundant Nuclear weapons rather than give everyone in Britain £1600 then you are frankly naive.
I think if advisers that actually know what they're talking about say we should redevelop Trident, we should. Calling people naive is a little harsh when frankly no one one this forum knows enough about Trident and military planning to pass judgement.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
It possibly is a bit harsh but I get a little bit "passionate" about these kind of things as I'm sure you know ^^. The problem with "advisers" is that they always believe their area is a priority. For example police advisers would say we need more police and NHS advisers would say we need more hospitals. The fact of the matter is we won't be using Nuclear weapons in the next 25 years and if we do then it will be against another country who has threatened us with Nuclear weapons and will therefore result in the destruction of our country anyway. We'd be better off without them and we should act more as a "passive" country like Finland or Sweden. Even if we did restore Trident then our number of Nuclear weapons is insignificant compared to larger states like the US who have around 9000 Nuclear weapons (We have less than 200)Quote:
Originally Posted by MattFr
Why not put the money to good use to fund the NHS or other key services?
NHS and other key services are pointless if we get attacked by nuclear weapons ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
Same old liberal views with same old liberal policys. The problem is that your views are too idealistic, of course in an ideal world we would love to scrap tutition fees, of course we would like to give a tax break to the first £10,000 you earn and of course we would love to scrap trident. Oh, sorry to burst your liberal bubble but that aint going to happen. EVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
It would cost far too much to scrap tutition fees and if i recall rightly clegg said it would happen over six years?. This is barmi as it would have to take place over TWO parliaments and there is not a cat in hells chance he will be elected anyway. Mr.Clegg even admitted himself when confronted by a student that it was not feasable to scrap tuition fees but has still continued with his miss-matched plan where the figures do not add up.
On the subject of the tax break for the first £10,000 you earn. We can NOT afford to do so and as a result the policy is just NOT feasable. You could say they published more figures in their manifesto?. Im sorry but this means absolutely nothing as you can say whatever figures you want but it doesnt necessarily make them correct.
As for Trident. It is ABSOLUTELY VITAL that we keep it operation 24hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. As if we were to scrap trident we would be pretty much defenceless and im 100% sure that the vast majority of people would pay £1600 to ensure that we have a nuclear deterrent so that britain is safe. Of course if the rest of the world didnt pose a threat it should be scrapped, but quite frankly it DOES pose a threat and we need to be protected from it.
Ah but so would Nuclear weapons themselves, in fact the NHS would be more useful because it could treat those who have been maimed by them. The difference is the NHS is useful when there isn't a Nuclear holocaust going on when in that situation the weapons are redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattFr
Ok firstly tell me why all of the Liberal Democrats plans are costed in their manifesto if their figures are so wrong? Are the Conservatives figures costed? No. Why? Because they know you can't just say "We will get rid of £6 Billion of waste". It doesn't make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by jam666
As for Top up fees have you kinda not just shot yourself in the foot there? You are saying that the Liberal Democrats are unrealistic when you have just given a point about how realistic they are. With a budget defecit this large it isn't possible to scrap top up fees so yes, they will have to be phased out over 6 years. Whats so wrong with that?
If their figures are so wrong then please tell me why even the Thatcherite Norman Tebbit has said that he supports Liberal Democrat tax proposals oh and why Vince Cable is held in higher regard than George Osbourne.Quote:
Originally Posted by jam666
A) Nuclear weapons are not our only form of defenceQuote:
Originally Posted by jam666
B) If attacked we wouldn't use them anyway
C) We have allies with over a hundred times as many Nuclear weapons than in Trident
D) There is no major threat to our national security, they are literally redundant
Nuclear weapons are our main form of defence it has to be said. Nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent if nothing else, we are a member of the UN Security Council and still very influential in international affairs, our military is still found throughout the world. Infact there has been the death of a British soldier abroad, every single year since 1945 other than one year. The reason we have no major problems with other countries or a threat is the fact we have a nuclear deterrent. It is very much a longterm plan and essential to the UK's security, just 25 years ago we were in the midst of the Cold War, no one would of predicted the situation we are in today. And we cannot predict what things will be like in 25 years. Trident cannot be made at the click of fingers, it has to be there serving as a deterrent constantly, who knows what the world will be like in 25 years. I have no doubt the Soviet Union would of attacked Europe had the UK and France not had nuclear weapons. There is a growing threat from China & Iran which is also notable.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
I'm afraid the NHS would be useless when we are struck by nuclear weapons, it would only take a few to take out the whole of the UK. The deterrent ensures this will not happen and contributes to the reason there has been so much peace in the world since WWII believe it or not.
Just because Vince Cable might be held in higher regard (In your opinion) it does not mean he is right and George Osbourne is wrong? Thatcher is held in incredibly high regard it doesn't mean that everyone agreed with her.
The £6 Billion waste can be easily saved by stopping things like useless government IT Projects and excessive bureaucracy, and frankly if jobs go too I will be pleased, we are not going to pay off hundreds of billions of pounds of debt if jobs don't go. With the booming business sector under the Tories thanks to the tax cuts for small businesses (and larger ones), and making it attractive for international businesses, these people could easily find new unemployment due to the amount of new jobs created.
Nick Clegg has no idea over scrapping tuition fees, that's why it will take 6 years. He had to compromise with backbenchers who were disappointed to get rid of the "scrapping tuition fees" pledge. Scrapping tuition fees is completely ridiculous anyway, while it is ideal, with plans for 50% of 18 year-olds to go to University and lots taking micky mouse subjects it's unaffordable. Under the old system with polytechnics, it was affordable (I'm not suggesting we go back to this, simply stating it is totally unreasonable to scrap tuition fees for now)
Well the issue is, they are ignoring the elephant in the room when talking about all of this because domestic affairs are now coming more and more under the control of the European Union. They talk about the economy when a Frenchman is coming to control the City of London and the EU is planning its own set of taxes, they talk about immigration but cannot control it without EU consent which is something they can not change and they talk about crime but cannot take any real action because the justice systems are controlled via Brussels. I'd also like to add, being a big defender of civil liberties on the face of it; why do you support European arrest warrants which defy habius corpos?Quote:
Originally Posted by alexxxxx
The debate itself, Clegg came off the best and Brown destroyed Cameron although be it quite rude. Cameron should of done it back, but if you look at it most are the same in policies and are failing to mention that as British Prime Minister none of them would have any real control as they are subject to what the EU and its unelected Commission and Courts want. The Trident issue with Clegg shows that a lot of people on here have no concept of international affairs and little knowledge that nuclear weapons will become more important. It would be lovely to have no nuclear weapons but you cannot un-invent something. The figure Nick Clegg gave I believe is wrong because the figure for Tridents renewal was at the £25 billion mark I believe and not the £100 billion mark (I have no idea where he got this figure from).
Well I've just finished watching it finally and I'm pleasantly surprised. To conclude there was no winner to this debate, credit to Nick Clegg, he was by far the best speaker and very presentable, he seemed to portray the Lib Dems as a realistic party in with a chance (Although this really isn't the case), while I'm not surprised he won people over so easily by appearing so much better than Cameron & Brown, his policies are abysmal, not like that wasn't already known. Scrapping trident is a ridiculous idea but it's not going to save anywhere near as much money as it sounds, the £100bn figure is based on decades of spending, it's not going to materialise straight away. He didn't outline any other ways of saving money and cutting the debt, despite criticising Cameron for it, then goes on to say he could easily save £17bn from bureaucracy etc yet still cutting lots of taxes. He also faced no opposition over cuts. Then of course there is the fact he opposes nuclear power and wants to take money away from road improvements to reopen railway stations (Reversing the Beeching Cuts). I suspect the Conservatives & Labour will rapidly unravel the Lib Dem policies soon enough and the public will see them as the fools they really are.
Also credit to Brown, he delivered some decent blows to Cameron, sadly Cameron didn't seem to properly attack either Clegg or Brown and that's presumably why he came out of it so badly. Cameron seemed to consistently say the right things and has the best policies especially when it comes to Education & Health, sadly he didn't portray these particularly well but I think if people began questioning which leader they agreed with most, there would be a different outcome to this debate. Another downfall for the Conservatives was reformation of the House of Lords, Brown & Clegg seem to have the right ideas here.
Clegg was passionate, Cameron was overly serious and Brown was too smug.
The £10,000 policy - the policy that the Liberal Democrats only just adopted and the one that UKIP have had as policy since 2006?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyDuo
To those so amazed at Liberal Democrat performance, maybe they should check out their policies;
- Build wind turbines and scrap nuclear power stations despite the fact its been proven as unfeesible.
- Join the euro currency and scrap the pound sterling which means the loss of monetary independence.
- Raise taxes on our brightest and best off which would mean many would leave (a brain drain).
- Scrap our independant nuclear missile system (Trident) despite it being the core of our national security.
- Relax immigration rules and asylum rules allowing an anmesty for asylum seekers here thus adding to our bills.
Exactly. I cant actually understand why so many people were deluded by Nick Clegg. As usual with the left wing liberals (a.k.a labours little brother) they portray idealistic views which CANNOT be implemented. EVER.Quote:
Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-
The problem is that the vast majority of the public is mis-informed and largely go by what they seen on the debates rather than researching each partys policys. Of course they are free to form their own opinion but they need to be informed better (and unfortuneately it seems to be the younger undecided voters). Which is what i feel will happen over the coming week or so as finally some light has been shed on the liberals policy and people will see them for what they are.
However i honestly dont believe its fair for Nick Clegg to be shown in the same light as GB or DC, afterall there is not a chance in hell of this guy every becoming PM and if there was, god forbid what would happen to the country.
Its also VERY DANGEROUS territory now as it seems that there will be a HUNG PARLIAMENT. This is terrible for the country but of course the liberals will be jumping for joy as they will have a VERY SMALL taste of power because they will ultimately be the king makers. As a result i do honestly hope that there is a slim Conservative majority.
I thought it was quite intresting.
I thought Nick Clegg was amazing. I didn't take the Lib Dems seriously a few years back but i really like them now.
I think Gordon Brown did alright as well and if i could vote i would for vote Labour but the Lib Dems are coming across as a party that should be taken seriously now. It's always been between Labour and Cons for the past 20 years, so yeah, they should be given a chance.
Didn't like Cameron, he's just fake and some of his policy's like taking away 6 Billion away from the ecomony in these times would be very silly. It would effect jobs and would slow our weak current growth.
All through it as well he always said "I met someone in blah blah blah" which i found quite bliming irritating.
Merged by iAdam (Forum Super Moderator); Similar subject.
there's already like 2 threads on this, 1 in spam and 1 in current affairs, pop into current affairs and post this in the thread there because i am sure you'll get a better reaction & discussion :)
Lmao you got completely brainwashed, who says that we can't take 6 Billion out the economy? Gordon Brown and you believed him over everyone else, this is someone who continually lies to the public and Labour broke 27 policies since the last election. Pointlessly spending £6 Billion on bureaucracy and silly projects is going to stop another recession and pay off debts is it lol? If you were to research Lib Dem policies you would realise they are totally unworkable and Labour/Conservative policies are much better.Quote:
Originally Posted by United-Clowgon
Also, all three leaders uses the 'I met someone speech', I think Clegg used it more than the others.
Was just checking out some of the Lib Dem manifesto. One of their policies is to ban new nuclear power plants. This is incredibly naive as nuclear is the only solution for the future, and recent developments mean it is very safe and emits practically no emissions. Would a die-hard Lib Dem supporter like to explain how Britain keeps power when the world runs out of fossil fuels because there is no way wind and solar will be able to fulfil the capacity of a country?
They would rather spend money on windfarms which use an enormous amount of energy to manufacture in the first place. They also don't generate enough revenue to pay for themselves in their 25 year lifespan. Nuclear really is our only option.Quote:
Originally Posted by MattFr
This is coming from Alan Johnson, Home Secretary (Labour); “They are soft on crime, inept on asylum and bloody dangerous on national security.” - If Labour are saying things like that it really does show how bad the Lib Dems are :P
Indeed. I thought the Lib Dems were good and Nick Clegg came across and a nice guy, but if they want to stop funding the Trident nuclear system and stop nuclear power plants then we're stuffed... we may never use the nuclear bomb/missile but it's a bloody good deterrent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordy
I now hope the Conservatives win.
Some misinformation on this page. Geothermal energy could power the entire would many times over. Right now geothermal energy could be used to produce one zJ of energy (double the amount of energy every country on earth uses). Trident is, in my opinion, a necessity.
Clegg won't win because of his policies to: Freeze public sector pay rises and in a double-whammy situation cut pensions. I personally also hate the fact that the Lib Dems wanted to join the euro zone and would be willing to completely pas the reigns of the UK over to the EU.