Should I vote Conservative

As long as we have FPTP, in most constituencies there are only two candidates with a realistic chance of being elected. I am a Liberal Democrat and as the choice in my constituency is between the LibDems and Tories, it is easy for me to vote for my preferred candidate. Elsewhere I might be better to vote Labour if it is a choice between Labour and Tories, especially as a Tory win (and possibly even a landslide) looks almost certain to happen.

In some places, though it is quite difficult to decide which is the lesser of two evils. In some Scottish constituencies the choice is between Tory and SNP. If my vote helped either of these parties to win, they could claim to have a mandate for something I totally oppose. I do not support Brexit, Theresa May or the policies of the Tories. I could never support the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon and the obsession with destroying the United Kingdom.

I am glad I do not have to make that type of impossible choice. I think if I was voting in a place like that, I would vote Liberal Democrat, even if my candidate was unlikely to win. At least then I would be endorsing the party I believe in.

Gilly, it is causing me to wake in the night and thinking about it, that is pathetic.

Even thought of not voting and this brought guilt .

Truth is I do not want May or Corbyn in No 10 but one of them will be . I did think I would vote for Plaid Cymru but that would mean voting against Welsh Labour

Anya, Blairite isn't an ism though and ite started with thatcher too, Thatcherite , we didn't have Cameronite or cammeronism

I am more undecided than ever Anniebach

It's looking like a vote between the devil and the deep blue sea.

I am still undecided , not Tory , this constituency will be Tory v Libs so am tempted to vote Lib but such guilt not voting for Welsh Labour

Blairite?

This need to label only started with thatcher, we never heard of Attleeism, Heathism, MacMillanism . Seems to be a need to stick a label on women PM's

Funny how we all view things differently. I'll be voting against May rather than for Corbyn as I think she's either naive and incompetent or totally false and hiding her true colours. Haven't quite decided yet, but I will predict she will not win a second general Election.

I hesitate to return to the fray but the Institute of Fiscal Studies does have an interesting perspective on the Labour Manifesto.

www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9228

It probably has sceptical views on all manifestos but it may help with some of the questions raised in recent days.

Going back to earlier comments, I had a happy childhood in a house that would be condemned today but I had enough to eat and the great good fortune of two loving parents (until I was 13) who could just about make ends meet. I do not recall many working-class Marxists at University but that is not to say there were none. I think the aim of most of us from the working class was to get out of it.

I agree with Daphne that Marxism means well but, like the EU, it has fallen down down when implemented. Perhaps, its proponents believe the end will justify the means which means democracy is suspended until the Brave New World is achieved. Sadly, experience suggests democracy dies en route.

By the way, privatisation is not just a UK feature. It has sometimes controversially been adopted in Europe and, indeed, unless this is fake news, the RMT argued the EU was imposing an element of privatisation in the EU:

www.rmt.org.uk/news/as-eu-imposes-rail-privatisation--rmt-says-vote-to-leave/

As far as the question posed is concerned, I will vote Conservative this time because I have no faith in Corbyn or Farron to govern or deliver. I suspect May will also fall short but in a less spectacular and less damaging way for the country. Voting can a choice between least-bad candidates or none-of-the-above. May seems to me more MacMillan than Thatcher while Corbyn more Foot than Blair. Indeed, May is more Blair than is Corbyn.

roses regarding your comment at 21.03 - you do realise that it is Tory policies that have made life so difficult for the younger generation, don't you? Lack of investment in training, cuts to education, massive increases in tuition fees, allowing the housing market to overheat, turning a blind eye to the erosion of workers' rights through the gig economy, privatising anything and everything. The answer to the question in the thread's title has to be No.

Couldn't you just circumvent the whether you own a house or not and use progressive taxation to raise the money just as we do for the NHS. This would ensure that those who can afford it pay the most when they can afford it.

I don't understand why houses get involved with care. Currently there is no way we can insure against care needs - why shouldn't the government provide a vehicle for that insurance?

My main issue with this is that it affects only those people who have significant care needs which require either regular care in their own homes or residential care. I think I am right in saying that the majority of elderly people do not go into care homes and it seems rather unfair to me that those who are unfortunate to have to do so should have so much taken away from them.

I wonder if it would be fairer if those people who own properties could pay into some sort of government-sponsored insurance scheme which would, if the need arose, cover all their care costs. Of course, this would mean that the majority of people would have paid for something that they did not need, but that is like all insurances and I personally would not mind doing that for my own, and everybody else's, peace of mind. No doubt some people would say that wasn't fair because those who owned no property would get all their care paid for without paying into an insurance scheme but my feeling is that the majority of people who live in rented accommodation do so because they don't have the money to buy their own home.

I don't suppose that would be a very popular idea with homeowners. However, I think people who have benefited from the huge rises in the price of their homes, not through any extra effort on their part but merely as a result of market forces (and I include myself in that) should be willing to make more of a contribution.

My own view is that the threshold for inheritance tax should be much lower (perhaps set at different levels, as with income tax). Of course, the Conservative government raised the threshold and, once again, the better off were protected while poorer people bore the brunt of the cuts.

These are just ideas and no doubt someone will say that they are unworkable but I really feel that care of the elderly should be the responsibility of everyone - not just those who have complex care needs.

The statement that "without the obligations and duties of citizenship society would not function" is rather rich coming from a government that has allowed large corporations and wealthy individuals to shirk their obligations and duties by avoiding paying tax for the services and infrastructure from which they benefit and on which they depend.

Tory party costings.

twitter.com/e_casalicchio/status/865228659417862145/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicshome.com%2Fnews%2Fuk%2Fpolitical-parties%2Flabour-party%2Fnews%2F86057%2Fjohn-mcdonnell-theresa-may-demanding-blank-cheque

So the Tories under Thatcher give you the right to buy your council house and turn us into a nation of house owners. Then the Tories under Mrs May tell you you will have to pay for your own care in old age and only be entitled to leave £100,000 to your children. If you have only one child that may be great but more than one and you are effectively leaving them less than their student debt. This isn't an attack on pensioners this is an attack on the next generation who already struggle to get on the housing ladder and manage their debts. Oh and with the average house costing around £250k and care costing about £1000 a week you've only got 3 years of care anyway so it isn't even a practical policy.

A group that is on the Sky News (the People Panel). One commented that it is a mean spirited manifesto and one of the weakest manifestos that he has seen them release and probably one of the most mean spirited that he had seen them release. He commented that it is weak because it shows there economic plan is not working; the deficit has not been paid off correctly. There are plans to increase taxes; there is the end of the triple lock on pensions which is not going to be a huge vote winner; if you want a decent standard of education pay for it with your kids school lunches; if you want a decent standard of Social Care pay for it with your house at the end of your life. It is not a good manifesto but I think it says a lot about what Theresa May feels about this election. I think she feels comfortable enough to put a manifesto out where she can be honest about what she thinks she is going to have to do after Brexit.

Free school meals came up with the next member of the panel who said she didn't have any words to describe that as there are so many children that need free school meals and it is the only maybe solid meal that they get thought the day, it's the only reliable meal that their parents are able to make sure is provided for them and it is because of this government that these are the only meals that the children can get. She also said that she thought Theresa May was not going far enough in regards to Social Care, in regards to the social responsibility we have in regards to our children and the older generation.

There were more of the same and this was a balance panel.

Well, they wouldn't would they?
The older generation need to do our bit though, the younger ones are finding life more difficult and just not getting on the housing ladder like a lot of our age did.

National Pensioners Convention doesn't like the manifesto.

npcuk.org/2601

It is a bleak future. I can find nothing in the manifesto about social housing, or control of rogue landlords. With the average house costing £215k I can't see how on earth our grandchildren are going to afford either a mortgage or the extortionate rents.

I did hear a mention about housing by a surprised journalist but didn't catch what it was whitewave. I think we will get a lot more in depth (without costs) analysis tomorrow.

The manifesto does commit to “social housing” too, saying: “We will never achieve the number of new homes we require without the active participation of social and municipal housing providers.

“We will enter into new Council Housing Deals with ambitious, pro-development, local authorities to help them build more social housing.”

However, there is a caveat, with the following sentence being: “We will build new fixed-term social houses, which will be sold privately after 10 to 15 years with an automatic Right to Buy for tenants.”

From this article
www.24housing.co.uk/news/conservatives-focus-on-post-brexit-britain/

My mother in laws care costs £1000 a week. She's 95 with dementia. Nothing left for the children and grandchildren.

The Tories who are advocating this will have millions to pass on to their children.

A million pensioners were taken out of poverty by the last labour government. In the last seven years, 400,000 have gone back into poverty. Ageuk figures.

Given the housing crises, does anyone know what the Tories intend to do about social housing?

Good luck with paying for your own care RAR. The cost of care for the lady on the news is nearly £100,000 a year because of her needs and currently she has help so the family are 'only' having to find nearly £40,000 a year. Under May's plan the mother would eventually be able to keep more of her money but would get no help with the huge costs she faces before that. It's great that you feel you would be OK with such costs.

Typos!.....with savings will have to pay up, it's fair.

T May won't be around when our DCand DGC are old and needing care, so it's a nonsense to say (now) that social care will be abolished for them.
Other PM's will have come and gone by then.
I am happy to fund our own care for the future, and £100,000 is more than enough to pass on to DC, I believe if you have it you should pay for it.I am very surprised by left wing posters not agreeing with this.I don't think that everybody, including younger tax payers should have the added burden of paying more for us.
Those without much savings and living in rented houses will be looked after in old age and we house owners wuth savings will have to pay up.It's fair.