Conservative plan to not charge inheritance tax on homes worth under1m

What policy? They can promise anything they like in their manifestoes, until it is made legally binding, they don't have to keep any of it.

 

I've listened to all the parties and watched endless TV and radio debates, and learned almost nothing about what they intend to do. Not a new idea between them. I've not heard a single question honestly and realistically answered, nor a single policy properly explained. Just endless rehearsed answers and soundbites. I wouldn't trust any of them. What they don't say frightens the **** out of me.

 

This country is in a mess, the country is on the slide, (in spite of what Cameron says,) and they clearly don't know what to do about it.

Any of them...

There is one party with some new ideas and they have also explained quite clearly how they will be funded.

The UKIP manifesto published today seemed to spell their intentions out quite clearly. What did you think of it ?

Actually, I agreed with most of it, and I rather like the way Nigel Farage handles himself and calls a spade a spade. He's on my maybe list...

BUT

A lot of UKIP candidates seem a bit dodgy and untried with some very right wing views. With UKIP I think it's a case of be careful what you wish for. Once again it's what's not in the manifesto that really matters. He is a self declared Thatcherite, he's actually more right wing than the Tories, he's a business man rather than a professional politician - good, but he was a banker - bad. Is he really going to look after the weak and vulnerable? the NHS?

Does he mean what he says, or is he just power hungry. He's not going to win outright, so we will not be leaving the EU - the other parties won't allow it. He's not going to be able to force it through.

Still floating...

Actually, I agreed with most of it, and I rather like the way Nigel Farage handles himself and calls a spade a spade. He's on my maybe list...

BUT

A lot of UKIP candidates seem a bit dodgy and untried with some very right wing views. With UKIP I think it's a case of be careful what you wish for. Once again it's what's not in the manifesto that really matters. He is a self declared Thatcherite, he's actually more right wing than the Tories, he's a business man rather than a professional politician - good, but he was a banker - bad. Is he really going to look after the weak and vulnerable? the NHS?

Does he mean what he says, or is he just power hungry. He's not going to win outright, so we will not be leaving the EU - the other parties won't allow it. He's not going to be able to force it through.

 

Still floating...

If they end up in coalition with the Conservatives I think we can guarantee a referendum, then its down to everyone if we stay in or leave.

Whats going to stop you floating, because your posts suggest that you don't trust anything any of them say?

:loopy:

If they end up in coalition with the Conservatives I think we can guarantee a referendum, then its down to everyone if we stay in or leave.

 

Whats going to stop you floating, because your posts suggest that you don't trust anything any of them say?

Good question. The answer is, I really don't know.

I'm still toying with the idea of spoiling my ballot paper. Why would I vote, and appear to support a system in which I have no confidence?

But then I also think it's a duty to use your vote when it was so hard won, and is a way of honouring those who made sacrifices to earn it for us.

I'm hoping that something will galvanise me. But times getting short.

I have no wish to be insulting but your rationale actually defies logical debate.

 

Labour bankrupted the country. No Labour government has ever left power with the economy in a better condition that they found it in.

 

Please do not do your usual request of asking me to substantiate the above statements, if you disagree state why.

Perhaps I should try wording this in a manner you’ll find easy to understand or counter (I won’t hold my breath on the second part).

This is a thread about the Conservatives plans to change the rules on Inheritance Tax, which are designed to make a small group of people considerably better off upon inheriting an estate.

I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of this policy change, but what no-one is disputing is that there are a significant number of people who will benefit from this.

Now if as you say is true, the country was bankrupted by Labour then it’s fairly reasonable to assume that if there was nothing to inherit then there would be very little fuss about this policy.

Now we both know this isn’t true and that a large part of this increase in the amounts being inherited can be attributed to when Labour was in power.

If you are unable to understand this, or counter it with a reasonable argument, then can I ever so politely suggest you refrain from posting nonsense.

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 13:09 ----------

There you go again, why is it important what school he went to? Has he or has he not created the fastest growing economy in any developed nation? Has he created nearly 2 million jobs? Has he reduced the deficit left by LABOUR? Is inflation down to its lowest level since 1960?

 

What matters here competence or the Bullingdon club?

 

Its pathetic, what qualification do you want our PM to have? 2 GCE O levels from Park Academy?

Are these the ssame to million jobs that have reduced the Income Tax revenues and increased the welfare bill by around 26 Billion quid.

They sound like great jobs to me lol!

This is a thread about the Conservatives plans to change the rules on Inheritance Tax, which are designed to make a small group of people considerably better off upon inheriting an estate.

 

I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of this policy change, but what no-one is disputing is that there are a significant number of people who will benefit from this.

Im sick to death of hearing this phrase. I could not give a fig about having an "ordinary" "man/woman of the people"

 

Will they be a good politician? Does what they stand for represent my views? Do I have trust that they will represent me?

That's what is important and that is what people should be seeking. All this crap about backgrounds, class, education is such piffle.

 

What the hell is an "ordinary working" person.

 

Mavis on the till at Tesco? Jeff the Roadworker? Quentin the Barrister? Charles the Surgeon?

They all work. Some MAY have been brought up in a privileged background. Some MAY have been raised in a council house who can say which is which. Not all doctors/barristers/bankers come from rich backgrounds. Not all lower wage workers come from modest homes. Why does any of that go to making them a great politician.

 

What about one of the rich spoilt wasters from something like Made in Chelsea - unlike the venom Cameron and Co receive they are instead adored by the population and worshiped by moronic masses - how about their ability to make a great politician?

 

Katie Hopkins perhaps - after all she clearly speaks her mind and would not hide behind soundbites and scripts. Maybe she is just what is needed eh?

 

Its all bull crap.

 

POLICY is what people should be caring about. Pity too many morons don't.

 

 

You rudely say that Cameron has never done a real day's work in his life. Like what? His gaining his degrees from Oxford, his work in the Research and Policy Departments, his senior management position at Carlton Communications, his work as an MP and subsequent work as leader of the party. You might like it but they are jobs. Its employment.

 

I hate people who limit the definition of "work" as something that seemingly only counts if its manual, dirty, medical or service industries. SOME jobs are academic. SOME jobs are operational. SOME jobs are paperwork and research. SOME jobs are leadings others. Does not make them any more or less important. Work is work.

Well said, you reflect my own views perfectly. Inverted snobbery is pathetic.

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 17:07 ----------

Perhaps I should try wording this in a manner you’ll find easy to understand or counter (I won’t hold my breath on the second part).

 

This is a thread about the Conservatives plans to change the rules on Inheritance Tax, which are designed to make a small group of people considerably better off upon inheriting an estate.

 

I’m not arguing the rights or wrongs of this policy change, but what no-one is disputing is that there are a significant number of people who will benefit from this.

 

Now if as you say is true, the country was bankrupted by Labour then it’s fairly reasonable to assume that if there was nothing to inherit then there would be very little fuss about this policy.

 

Now we both know this isn’t true and that a large part of this increase in the amounts being inherited can be attributed to when Labour was in power.

 

If you are unable to understand this, or counter it with a reasonable argument, then can I ever so politely suggest you refrain from posting nonsense.

 

Thanks in advance for your co-operation.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 13:09 ----------

 

 

Are these the ssame to million jobs that have reduced the Income Tax revenues and increased the welfare bill by around 26 Billion quid.

 

They sound like great jobs to me lol!

I think you qualify as a troll. You make no useful contribution to the debate, you make it up as you go along. Go and sit with the daft kids while the adults have a discussion.

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 17:23 ----------

It is important that he is in touch /tune with the ordinary working man. Cameron is patently not. I don't think you realise just how different his life is from yours.

 

He makes no effort to appreciate ordinary life. Just sound bites and photo oportunities. He lives with gentry, went to school with gentry, mixes with gentry. It's all he knows. God forbid a working man should ever cross his path unless he's been heavily vetted and a camera is standing ready. He has never done a day's real work in his life. His sense of entitlement just oozes through in everything he says and does.

Even Prince Charles, another ex Eton boy, takes time to get to know and understand the problems of ordinary people and gives targeted support with his charities to help them get on.

 

Apart from this he is incompetent, the British answer to George W Bush. All he does is regurgitate speeches that are written for him. His only way of dealing with questions is a) the stock answer, b) belittle the opposition, c) answer a question he wasn't asked with another stock answer.

 

As for his 'achievements,' well there's spin and more spin. I don't believe a word of it. Unemployment only appears to have fallen because a third of the unemployed are on sanctions at any one time, that is not the same as 'having more people in work,' though he tries to spin it thus. 0 hours, short term contracts, falling wages, workers hard won rights trampled over, desperate self employed trying to scrape a living... I could go on. Economic recovery depends which figures you look at. Production is down, exports are down, wages are down, cost of living up, balance of payments up, interest at zero %, the debt has doubled, and so on. The man is useless.

 

And I am no lover of Ed Milliband either.

You know nothing of my life. Your preconceptions therefor are presumptive. My background could not be more different from Camerons. My upbringing similarly completely different.

However, I consider him to be a thoroughly decent man, who has the interests of the country at heart. I believe he sees himself, as does Osborne as a one nation Tory. More in tune with Macmillan than Thatcher. McLeod rather than Keith Joseph. Unlike previous Tory leaders such as Thatcher and Major he is personally wealthy, he therefore does not need to seek to act in other than a beneficent manner to his fellow citizens.

He is criticized for mentioning the death and illness of his child, but he has had that experience, it must be a formulative aspect of his development as a man, a father and a politician so maybe he should tell us about it.

Do you feel he laments the loss of his child any less because of his political beliefs? Or does your embedded belief about his inability to empathize with others who do not share his background keep you from even granting him the ability to grieve?

What is the cut off point in your opinion? At what point do you feel you share a common humanity?

.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 17:07 ----------

 

 

I think you qualify as a troll. You make no useful contribution to the debate, you make it up as you go along. Go and sit with the daft kids while the adults have a discussion.

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2015 at 17:23 ----------

 

 

Are you David Cameron as he seems quite good at avoiding answering awkward questions as well.I'll carry on waiting for a response then.

Are you David Cameron as he seems quite good at avoiding answering awkward questions as well.I'll carry on waiting for a response then.

Come up with an awkward question and I will answer it, just don't spout inanities about the fabulous amount of money Labour created.

They borrowed more than we could afford, they sold our gold for a pittance, they allowed the banks to go insane, they pillaged our pensions.

They spun lied and prevaricated and continue to do so.

PS They started two illegal wars. People are drowning today in the Meditteranean as a direct result of what Blair, Brown, Balls, Milliband Harman etc did.

The full report on their war crimes is due to be published in July.

Are you David Cameron as he seems quite good at avoiding answering awkward questions as well.I'll carry on waiting for a response then.

Pot, kettle, black?

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10976142&postcount=186