Spread the Word

[HeadingNorth]

People who have paid into the system should have every right to be looked after at the expense of the state.

 

State provision of services has never operated on that basis. Indeed, the whole point of having the state supply them is so that they can be supplied to people who need them, not just to those who could afford to pay into the system to provide them.

 

If rights were to be awarded based on money paid in, we might as well abolish government provision and let every family insure themselves for their own needs.

[*_ash_*]

I don't understand your site steveroberts. Can you explain further please?

 

UK voters are no longer as loyal to party lines which means we have a greater number of marginal seats. It will only take a few hundred 'traditional Tory' voters to switch their votes from the Tories, in each constituency, for the Tories to lose the opportunity to form the next Government. It is this that has prompted me to start http://www.saving-our-savings.co.uk.

 

What Can You Do To Help?

 

If you live in a marginal Tory seat, let me know. We need to organise ourselves to lobby local loyal Tory voters and get them to switch their allegiance to another party at the next election. If we can do this, we will gain enough support from those threatened MPs to get them to lobby Government to implement Dilnot.

 

 

It looks like a Tory bashing site, based on the wording, but the Dilnot recommendations seem to me to favour the rich (and most Tory haters don't like the rich do they?)

 

The Dilnot report's key recommendations

 

• A cap of £35,000 on lifetime individual liability for care costs.

• Food and accommodation costs not capped, but liability limited to £10,000 a year.

 

• Assets threshold for cut-off of state support raised from £23,250 to £100,000.

 

Would this not mean that rich people would have their costs paid for them, when they could clearly pay themselves?

 

I'm genuinely confused

[mickw]

State provision of services has never operated on that basis. Indeed, the whole point of having the state supply them is so that they can be supplied to people who need them, not just to those who could afford to pay into the system to provide them.

 

If rights were to be awarded based on money paid in, we might as well abolish government provision and let every family insure themselves for their own needs.

 

I didn't say or infer that you have a right to take out what you put in.

Funds should be targeted at the people who need them.

What should not happen is a situation like this.

[HeadingNorth]

I didn't say or infer that you have a right to take out what you put in.

 

Yes you did.

 

People who have paid into the system should have every right to be looked after at the expense of the state.

[cressida]

I've posted it elsewhere

[mickw]

Yes you did.

 

..................................