No Trees = No Labour! Dawn Raids Swung me!

[Cyclone 10]

Perhaps you're right, they don't have a great record for reversing any of the policies they oppose whilst in opposition.

[Funky_Gibbon 42]

Perhaps you're right, they don't have a great record for reversing any of the policies they oppose whilst in opposition.

 

Well it'd be a bit embarrassing if they didn't this time since their manifesto is stuffed with policies reversing things they opposed.

[sgtkate 10]

At the weekend I was in Ironbridge, and whilst wandering around I noticed that the pavement near all the trees was made of that rubber tarmac looking stuff you get in kids playgrounds. Perfectly fine to walk on, but critically can flex and crush so the tree can grow quite happily without ruining the pavement. Problem solved without a single dawn raid.

 

From Google streetview, I did take a pic but CBA to upload it and link to it.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6277612,-2.4862934,3a,75y,150.99h,76.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soD1XkRJM0nyMHpVk5A2pRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 14:18 ----------

 

If the tories get in (which they will) and bring in those policies (which they might) labour will reverse none of them as and when (if?) they get in again.

 

No, they would with Corbyn as the leader...if he's gone who knows?

[max 13]

At the weekend I was in Ironbridge, and whilst wandering around I noticed that the pavement near all the trees was made of that rubber tarmac looking stuff you get in kids playgrounds. Perfectly fine to walk on, but critically can flex and crush so the tree can grow quite happily without ruining the pavement. Problem solved without a single dawn raid.

 

From Google streetview, I did take a pic but CBA to upload it and link to it.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.6277612,-2.4862934,3a,75y,150.99h,76.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1soD1XkRJM0nyMHpVk5A2pRg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1?hl=en

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 14:18 ----------

 

 

No, they would with Corbyn as the leader...if he's gone who knows?

 

You do know that Ironbridge is a tourist attraction and the footfall along the bank of the river is probably measured in 10s of thousands of people per year which would justify wrapping all the trees' roots in rubber?

[Robin-H 11]

You do know that Ironbridge is a tourist attraction and the footfall along the bank of the river is probably measured in 10s of thousands of people per year which would justify wrapping all the trees' roots in rubber?

 

Flexi-pave (or similar) is quite standard practice around tree roots. It is just not confined for areas with high footfall. Indeed, it is one of the engineering solutions that AMEY promised to use before resorting to felling a tree - unfortunately they are now not proposing using it.

[sgtkate 10]

You do know that Ironbridge is a tourist attraction and the footfall along the bank of the river is probably measured in 10s of thousands of people per year which would justify wrapping all the trees' roots in rubber?

 

That doesn't make sense Max. Are you saying that it's ok for SCC to remove healthy trees against their own reports but it's not ok for Telford Council (I assume!) to do the same because of tourists? Or are you saying tourists wouldn't go to see a massive iron bridge because the trees were removed? I was just saying there's an easy solution to the tree problem that doesn't involve removing them, whether it's cost effective or not, none of us know because the relevant parts in the contract are redacted.

 

Anyway, we've gone off the original spirit of the OP. You shouldn't not vote for Labour nationally because there local reps are hopelessly inept but please, please, please vote them out in the local elections.

[natjack 10]

Dementia tax, sell your house for care home fees, creeping privatisation of the NHS, didn't they suggest a fee to visit the GP recently as well?

And the contract debacle that Hunt has presided over, causing the first ever strike by NHS doctors!

You already have to sell your home for care home fees, or your relatives have to pay for you. At least the Conservative policy will mean you get to keep £100k, that seems fair to me. At present you only get to keep £23.5k.

 

So not all bad?

[Cyclone 10]

You mean now that they've done a huge u turn?

 

A clearly flustered Prime Minister announced the Conservatives would pledge to introduce a cap on lifetime care costs, following widespread protests that more families would be forced to sell the homes of pensioners paying for their care.

 

The seemingly unprecedented reversal on a clear manifesto pledge comes after she threw out plans for the cap just last Thursday, insisting it was not necessary to protect older people from catastrophic care costs.

 

They clearly are just flapping around, desperate to grab any vote they can with no reference to the costs, financial or social.

[Robin-H 11]

You already have to sell your home for care home fees, or your relatives have to pay for you. At least the Conservative policy will mean you get to keep £100k, that seems fair to me. At present you only get to keep £23.5k.

 

So not all bad?

 

Exactly. Now that a cap is proposed I don't really see any negatives to this policy. The amount of money you will be left with has increased significantly. Nobody will be made to sell their home whilst they are alive. There is now a cap on care costs. The poorest in society will benefit the most.

[sgtkate 10]

Exactly. Now that a cap is proposed I don't really see any negatives to this policy. The amount of money you will be left with has increased significantly. Nobody will be made to sell their home whilst they are alive. There is now a cap on care costs. The poorest in society will benefit the most.

 

Let's just extrapolate this a little further. Do you think everyone should have their houses or possessions taken by the government to pay for:

 

- Jobseekers Allowance

- Child benefit

- Tax credits

- Statutory sickness

- Maternity/paternity leave

- Pension

- Any usage of the NHS

 

Because ultimately this is little different. We live in a country where we all pay into a big pot and those who need support get it covered out of the pot. Everyone. Some people will get more out than they put in and others will get less. Effectively some of our tax and our NI charges are insurance that we all pay and ALL of us should be covered. If the charges for that insurance isn't high enough then more charges need to be made across the board affecting all 'equally' (i.e. by all means tax the wealthy more but people on average incomes needs to accept they must pay more to carry on receiving the level of care they expect). The problem the Tories have is that they want to be seen as the party of low tax and therefore are utterly screwed as they cannot raise taxes to cover their costs and so have to come up with creative schemes that are a tax all but in name instead.

[Cyclone 10]

Exactly. Now that a cap is proposed I don't really see any negatives to this policy. The amount of money you will be left with has increased significantly. Nobody will be made to sell their home whilst they are alive. There is now a cap on care costs. The poorest in society will benefit the most.

 

So the flip flopping, the fact that they're already prepared to abandon manifesto policies, the nature of the proposal before they realised just how badly everyone hated it... They're entirely out of touch with the normal person, they don't care about the social harm they do, they're reprehensible.

[Robin-H 11]

Let's just extrapolate this a little further. Do you think everyone should have their houses or possessions taken by the government to pay for:

 

- Jobseekers Allowance

- Child benefit

- Tax credits

- Statutory sickness

- Maternity/paternity leave

- Pension

- Any usage of the NHS

 

Because ultimately this is little different. We live in a country where we all pay into a big pot and those who need support get it covered out of the pot. Everyone. Some people will get more out than they put in and others will get less. Effectively some of our tax and our NI charges are insurance that we all pay and ALL of us should be covered. If the charges for that insurance isn't high enough then more charges need to be made across the board affecting all 'equally' (i.e. by all means tax the wealthy more but people on average incomes needs to accept they must pay more to carry on receiving the level of care they expect). The problem the Tories have is that they want to be seen as the party of low tax and therefore are utterly screwed as they cannot raise taxes to cover their costs and so have to come up with creative schemes that are a tax all but in name instead.

 

But the system now is that you might only be left with £23,500. If you go into a care home your house is already taken into consideration as part of that. There is also no limit you how much you're expected to pay.

 

The proposed system is much better than the current system. If social care was currently universally free and they were suggesting people had to pay for it themselves than I could understand the uproar - but in most cases we have to pay for it ourselves already.

 

---------- Post added 22-05-2017 at 18:13 ----------

 

So the flip flopping, the fact that they're already prepared to abandon manifesto policies, the nature of the proposal before they realised just how badly everyone hated it... They're entirely out of touch with the normal person, they don't care about the social harm they do, they're reprehensible.

 

Jeez - does changing your mind really make you reprehensible? They've listened and realised that the proposal as outlined was very unpopular and have altered it to reflect that. Ironically, it was unpopular despite the fact that it was the poorest in society that would have benefitted the most.

 

I think it is stupid for them to pretend that they haven't done a u-turn when it is obvious that they have, but I don't have a problem with them changing their mind at all. Governments and politicians do it all the time, usually for the better.