Leaders Debate

[Black_Apalachi]

Why do you have to pay anything though? I don't see why your own house can't automatically pass down to your family.

[Jordy]

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.

[Catzsy]

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.

[jam666]

Why do you have to pay anything though? I don't see why your own house can't automatically pass down to your family.

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.

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.

[MrPinkPanther]

There will come a day when Korea/Iran have Nuclear weapons. And if we go down the route of scrapping Trident and in turn scrapping our Nuclear weapons, as one the ONLY G8 country in the world without Nuclear weapons, we would be the first to be attacked.

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.

[Black_Apalachi]

Oh, I get it now thanks x

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.

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.

[MrPinkPanther]

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.

[MattFr]

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.

[MrPinkPanther]

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.

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)

Why not put the money to good use to fund the NHS or other key services?

[MattFr]

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)

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