What do Tories here think of the whole pay for your own care situation?
Amazed a thread hasn't been made about this.
Scroll to see replies
Its an interesting policy if only for the fact that its 100% not designed to gain votes. Clearly its what may+co actually believe is the best thing for the country (debatable whether it is or not of course), as its not going to help them win votes...
the entire manifesto has put everyone in a bit of an internal spin, and has really exposed a lot of the awful nature of tribal politics.
The day after the manifesto launch, Labours election coordinator is on the Daily Politics, explaining how providing free social care and winter heating for the poorest, whilst raising more money off the richer - is a bad thing.
In the same interview, the party that normally represents a younger audience is falling head over heals to defend the pensions triple lock...
Its a crazy switch where the conservatives are actually announcing policies that young people should support - less to the wealthy pensioners, (whilst protecting the poorest).
The winter fuel allowance is another area where Labour are disagreeing for purely vote-grabbing reasons: because they must oppose the torries, and because they want any older voters who will be worried by this. In principle though its a very Labour-esque policy. It keeps provision for the poorest pensioners, whilst taking public money away from the rich. (Labour have argued that some money comes back through taxation on the allowance already, but clearly thats not taking away as much from the rich, as scrapping it all together).
I think the labour are attacking this on the wrong grounds. Instead of trying to argue that the cuts are bad (which is a weak arguement considering they are not cutting the poorest, only the richer) - they should instead be attacking the conservatives on where the raised money will go..
If it were me, my line of attack would be: OK, your raising this extra money.. what are you going to do with it to help normal people? Its no good raising extra money if its going to be given back to corporations/rich - Its not a line of arguement I agree with, but it would be an easy goal to score in a debate, as the conservatives would have a hard time convincing the majority of people that (based on their track record) they would actually put that money back into public services, instead of just reducing the deficit (which plays worse with the voting public)
Aside from the political implications, the policy itself is fine by me. I would personally prefer the limit to be above 100k. 150-200 would seem more apropriate to me. But the principle of funding your care, whilst still being able to keep all your assets until after you die, and always guaranteeing at least some inheritance, is pretty solid in my eyes.
the entire manifesto has put everyone in a bit of an internal spin, and has really exposed a lot of the awful nature of tribal politics.
The day after the manifesto launch, Labours election coordinator is on the Daily Politics, explaining how providing free social care and winter heating for the poorest, whilst raising more money off the richer - is a bad thing.
In the same interview, the party that normally represents a younger audience is falling head over heals to defend the pensions triple lock...
Its a crazy switch where the conservatives are actually announcing policies that young people should support - less to the wealthy pensioners, (whilst protecting the poorest).
The winter fuel allowance is another area where Labour are disagreeing for purely vote-grabbing reasons: because they must oppose the torries, and because they want any older voters who will be worried by this. In principle though its a very Labour-esque policy. It keeps provision for the poorest pensioners, whilst taking public money away from the rich. (Labour have argued that some money comes back through taxation on the allowance already, but clearly thats not taking away as much from the rich, as scrapping it all together).
I think the labour are attacking this on the wrong grounds. Instead of trying to argue that the cuts are bad (which is a weak arguement considering they are not cutting the poorest, only the richer) - they should instead be attacking the conservatives on where the raised money will go..
If it were me, my line of attack would be: OK, your raising this extra money.. what are you going to do with it to help normal people? Its no good raising extra money if its going to be given back to corporations/rich - Its not a line of arguement I agree with, but it would be an easy goal to score in a debate, as the conservatives would have a hard time convincing the majority of people that (based on their track record) they would actually put that money back into public services, instead of just reducing the deficit (which plays worse with the voting public)
Aside from the political implications, the policy itself is fine by me. I would personally prefer the limit to be above 100k. 150-200 would seem more apropriate to me. But the principle of funding your care, whilst still being able to keep all your assets until after you die, and always guaranteeing at least some inheritance, is pretty solid in my eyes.
Original post by fallen_acorns
Its an interesting policy if only for the fact that its 100% not designed to gain votes. Clearly its what may+co actually believe is the best thing for the country (debatable whether it is or not of course), as its not going to help them win votes...
the entire manifesto has put everyone in a bit of an internal spin, and has really exposed a lot of the awful nature of tribal politics.
The day after the manifesto launch, Labours election coordinator is on the Daily Politics, explaining how providing free social care and winter heating for the poorest, whilst raising more money off the richer - is a bad thing.
In the same interview, the party that normally represents a younger audience is falling head over heals to defend the pensions triple lock...
Its a crazy switch where the conservatives are actually announcing policies that young people should support - less to the wealthy pensioners, (whilst protecting the poorest).
The winter fuel allowance is another area where Labour are disagreeing for purely vote-grabbing reasons: because they must oppose the torries, and because they want any older voters who will be worried by this. In principle though its a very Labour-esque policy. It keeps provision for the poorest pensioners, whilst taking public money away from the rich. (Labour have argued that some money comes back through taxation on the allowance already, but clearly thats not taking away as much from the rich, as scrapping it all together).
I think the labour are attacking this on the wrong grounds. Instead of trying to argue that the cuts are bad (which is a weak arguement considering they are not cutting the poorest, only the richer) - they should instead be attacking the conservatives on where the raised money will go..
If it were me, my line of attack would be: OK, your raising this extra money.. what are you going to do with it to help normal people? Its no good raising extra money if its going to be given back to corporations/rich - Its not a line of arguement I agree with, but it would be an easy goal to score in a debate, as the conservatives would have a hard time convincing the majority of people that (based on their track record) they would actually put that money back into public services, instead of just reducing the deficit (which plays worse with the voting public)
Aside from the political implications, the policy itself is fine by me. I would personally prefer the limit to be above 100k. 150-200 would seem more apropriate to me. But the principle of funding your care, whilst still being able to keep all your assets until after you die, and always guaranteeing at least some inheritance, is pretty solid in my eyes.
the entire manifesto has put everyone in a bit of an internal spin, and has really exposed a lot of the awful nature of tribal politics.
The day after the manifesto launch, Labours election coordinator is on the Daily Politics, explaining how providing free social care and winter heating for the poorest, whilst raising more money off the richer - is a bad thing.
In the same interview, the party that normally represents a younger audience is falling head over heals to defend the pensions triple lock...
Its a crazy switch where the conservatives are actually announcing policies that young people should support - less to the wealthy pensioners, (whilst protecting the poorest).
The winter fuel allowance is another area where Labour are disagreeing for purely vote-grabbing reasons: because they must oppose the torries, and because they want any older voters who will be worried by this. In principle though its a very Labour-esque policy. It keeps provision for the poorest pensioners, whilst taking public money away from the rich. (Labour have argued that some money comes back through taxation on the allowance already, but clearly thats not taking away as much from the rich, as scrapping it all together).
I think the labour are attacking this on the wrong grounds. Instead of trying to argue that the cuts are bad (which is a weak arguement considering they are not cutting the poorest, only the richer) - they should instead be attacking the conservatives on where the raised money will go..
If it were me, my line of attack would be: OK, your raising this extra money.. what are you going to do with it to help normal people? Its no good raising extra money if its going to be given back to corporations/rich - Its not a line of arguement I agree with, but it would be an easy goal to score in a debate, as the conservatives would have a hard time convincing the majority of people that (based on their track record) they would actually put that money back into public services, instead of just reducing the deficit (which plays worse with the voting public)
Aside from the political implications, the policy itself is fine by me. I would personally prefer the limit to be above 100k. 150-200 would seem more apropriate to me. But the principle of funding your care, whilst still being able to keep all your assets until after you die, and always guaranteeing at least some inheritance, is pretty solid in my eyes.
I agree with everything you've said, except the 150-200k limit... it should be lower! 25k tops.
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Amazed a thread hasn't been made about this.
Its realistic but stupid.
Instead of hitting retired folks who are sick, the tories need to raid the disgusting benefits bill and reduce it from £125 BILLION (that does not include pensions) a year to £50 billion. Then with the money saved they could pay to make 1000 care homes a year and fund them for free.
Of course the other principle is you have already paid, the fact that the party that ought to so provide has squandered the money over generations is not your fault.
The generation argument is shallow, the generations who paid taxes and NI paid for a vast swathe of the infrastructure enjoyed by all, whilst obviously not practical/possible perhaps it the idea is extended to people having to pay to say use roads/hospitals that were built before they were born it might demonstrate the shallowness of the argument being made, collective pooling is how these areas work- pretty much the purpose of taxation, in the long term if you break that covenant between state and people what justification for taxation remains?
And of course thinking the politics through, it is the grandparents/parents estates of younger voters which will be impacted-in effect their inheritances being whittled down at an effective rate of 100% tax, the thing people forget is the destination of residual estates , and the frictional costs arriving at same, is not a tax on the leaver (he or she is dead) but on the receiver. Whilst they may have thought they had the lead to do this have they fully considered the impact on younger generations? Whilst I no longer have any parents/grandparents I would not be best pleased at a party hitting them like this- a lot of even grown up children have a pretty tight bond with their grandparents- did they factor this into their voter impact analysis.
What we have here is a team that were 3-1 up with 10 minutes to play deciding to score an own goal, 3-2 is never a comfortable lead and Conservatives must now hope they hold out, score themselves or pray Labour score another own goal. (Something they are very good at doing)
They are also in trouble if they now reverse their position, if seeking election on Strong and Stable a volte face when the going gets tough shows the opposite-what a stupid mess and crass inept judgement.
The generation argument is shallow, the generations who paid taxes and NI paid for a vast swathe of the infrastructure enjoyed by all, whilst obviously not practical/possible perhaps it the idea is extended to people having to pay to say use roads/hospitals that were built before they were born it might demonstrate the shallowness of the argument being made, collective pooling is how these areas work- pretty much the purpose of taxation, in the long term if you break that covenant between state and people what justification for taxation remains?
And of course thinking the politics through, it is the grandparents/parents estates of younger voters which will be impacted-in effect their inheritances being whittled down at an effective rate of 100% tax, the thing people forget is the destination of residual estates , and the frictional costs arriving at same, is not a tax on the leaver (he or she is dead) but on the receiver. Whilst they may have thought they had the lead to do this have they fully considered the impact on younger generations? Whilst I no longer have any parents/grandparents I would not be best pleased at a party hitting them like this- a lot of even grown up children have a pretty tight bond with their grandparents- did they factor this into their voter impact analysis.
What we have here is a team that were 3-1 up with 10 minutes to play deciding to score an own goal, 3-2 is never a comfortable lead and Conservatives must now hope they hold out, score themselves or pray Labour score another own goal. (Something they are very good at doing)
They are also in trouble if they now reverse their position, if seeking election on Strong and Stable a volte face when the going gets tough shows the opposite-what a stupid mess and crass inept judgement.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by fallen_acorns
OK, your raising this extra money.. what are you going to do with it to help normal people? Its no good raising extra money if its going to be given back to corporations/rich
Pretty silly argument. You know nothing about the UK economy if you think this.
Original post by Coolerthanapples
Pretty silly argument. You know nothing about the UK economy if you think this.
did you litterally not read the following sentance? Where it says '- Its not a line of arguement I agree with, but it would be an easy goal to score in a debate'
?
My point was not that I agree with the line - but that to the majority of the electorate it would resonate well. Arguments do not have to be sound to win an election, they just have to play well with the perceptions/fears/reactions of the general public.
Original post by Coolerthanapples
Pretty silly argument. You know nothing about the UK economy if you think this.
But, lower corporation tax only drives an economy is the companies reinvest the funds they would have paid within their business, when they do not, and there is a currently vast amount of funds slushing around within their balance sheets not being invested, lower corporation tax may be a drag on economic performance- the private sector fails to drive the economy.
Whilst I have always believed, ceteris paribus, that business allocates resources more efficiently than government that presupposes that business does actually allocate the resources, when they do not one has to question whether lower business taxes do benefit the economy.
I agree with it, under Labour, my dad and uncle were left with a £23000 inheritance between them after my grandad had to sell his £250,000 house to go into a nursing home. How is being able to keep a £100,000 inheritance anything but an improvement on the current situation?
Original post by TheGuyReturns
Amazed a thread hasn't been made about this.
I think it's an awful policy electorally and practically also.
It puts a coach and horses right through the principal of free care at the point of use and makes a bad existing policy (pay for your own residential care) worse by extending it to at home care which affects much more people for a longer period of time. Admittedly the rate they won't touch is 4 times what it was but really how long do people stay in a care home for? It's really end of life care for a matter of months or a few years in most cases.
It won't even affect the savvy or rich either as they will put their assets in trust for their estate meaning it will escape being considered as an asset.
I know this as my partners mother was already in the process of doing this as she recently turned 75 and it's a real concern for her if she has to go to a care home in the future.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jimbo1234
Its realistic but stupid.
Instead of hitting retired folks who are sick, the tories need to raid the disgusting benefits bill and reduce it from £125 BILLION (that does not include pensions) a year to £50 billion. Then with the money saved they could pay to make 1000 care homes a year and fund them for free.
Instead of hitting retired folks who are sick, the tories need to raid the disgusting benefits bill and reduce it from £125 BILLION (that does not include pensions) a year to £50 billion. Then with the money saved they could pay to make 1000 care homes a year and fund them for free.
That benefits bill is mostly for pensioners and the disabled lol
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Sorry for ruining your night as the image below is just flat out depressing;
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
So actually I was wrong, £149 Billion is pissed away. Disability shouldn't be that high, nor should housing (relocate people to cheaper areas), Family and tax credits should be zero. Companies should pay more if they want employees and we don't need more people so if you can't afford a child then don't have one! Crazy logic. ANd the personal extras is a joke -giving entitled ***** free laptops and phones to "look for jobs", and paying for taxis etc. Utter joke that has crippled the UK.
(edited 6 years ago)
I'm half expecting a Tory candidate to come out and say social care costs can easily be avoided by a quick trip to Dignitas.
I'm not a Tory, though it sounds like the sort of policy I'd expect the labour party to come out with. Let's squeeze the "rich" (or at least the middle class) and make them pay more for their healthcare etc.
Now on a purely pragmatic level, as somebody has said this isn't a vote winner. Nobody is going to vote conservative because of this policy ... But here's the thing it's not particularly ghoulish as a policy, those in need of care will get it and they will be able to keep their homes up until the moment of death, after which point they don't particularly need a home anymore.
I can't see this doing anything though, parents who are concerned about their childrens inherritence will simply gift the house to their children before they die so that the government can't lay claim to their property. It's a bit of a bizarre policy to be honest.
Now on a purely pragmatic level, as somebody has said this isn't a vote winner. Nobody is going to vote conservative because of this policy ... But here's the thing it's not particularly ghoulish as a policy, those in need of care will get it and they will be able to keep their homes up until the moment of death, after which point they don't particularly need a home anymore.
I can't see this doing anything though, parents who are concerned about their childrens inherritence will simply gift the house to their children before they die so that the government can't lay claim to their property. It's a bit of a bizarre policy to be honest.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Sorry for ruining your night as the image below is just flat out depressing;
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
So actually I was wrong, £149 Billion is pissed away. Disability shouldn't be that high, nor should housing (relocate people to cheaper areas), Family and tax credits should be zero. Companies should pay more if they want employees and we don't need more people so if you can't afford a child then don't have one! Crazy logic. ANd the personal extras is a joke -giving entitled ***** free laptops and phones to "look for jobs", and paying for taxis etc. Utter joke that has crippled the UK.
http://visual.ons.gov.uk/welfare-spending/
So actually I was wrong, £149 Billion is pissed away. Disability shouldn't be that high, nor should housing (relocate people to cheaper areas), Family and tax credits should be zero. Companies should pay more if they want employees and we don't need more people so if you can't afford a child then don't have one! Crazy logic. ANd the personal extras is a joke -giving entitled ***** free laptops and phones to "look for jobs", and paying for taxis etc. Utter joke that has crippled the UK.
Let's look at the figures you linked
42% on pensions - can't do anything about that
16% on disability benefits - can't do anything about that
1% on unemployment benefits - negligible figure
10% on housing benefit - build more homes and social homes and you will make a big dent in that.
In work benefits/family benefits 17% - by all means do something about it but you will be hitting sections of society that don't deserve being hit in the pocket, causing poverty and hardship if taken away and if you radically raise the minimum wage you will decrease foreign investment, lose jobs, increase unemployment benefits and make our economy less competitive with other countries.
13% social services and other benefits - obviously you can't cut social services and other benefits could be anything so I can't comment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Let's look at the figures you linked
42% on pensions - can't do anything about that
16% on disability benefits - can't do anything about that
1% on unemployment benefits - negligible figure
10% on housing benefit - build more homes and social homes and you will make a big dent in that.
In work benefits/family benefits 17% - by all means do something about it but you will be hitting sections of society that don't deserve being hit in the pocket, causing poverty and hardship if taken away and if you radically raise the minimum wage you will decrease foreign investment, lose jobs, increase unemployment benefits and make our economy less competitive with other countries.
13% social services and other benefits - obviously you can't cut social services and other benefits could be anything so I can't comment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
42% on pensions - can't do anything about that
16% on disability benefits - can't do anything about that
1% on unemployment benefits - negligible figure
10% on housing benefit - build more homes and social homes and you will make a big dent in that.
In work benefits/family benefits 17% - by all means do something about it but you will be hitting sections of society that don't deserve being hit in the pocket, causing poverty and hardship if taken away and if you radically raise the minimum wage you will decrease foreign investment, lose jobs, increase unemployment benefits and make our economy less competitive with other countries.
13% social services and other benefits - obviously you can't cut social services and other benefits could be anything so I can't comment.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You can fix disability and housing easily. First off the figures don't add up e.g. the amount of people with actual disabilities e.g. MS, cerebral palsy etc and the huge amount claiming benefits over "back ache". I actually have seen this first hand and the system is abused horrifically by the underclass.
Housing - move the people to cheap areas. If you live in an area with jobs e.g. within an hour of a major city, then you are either choosing not to work or have so few skill you are unemployable. In that case move them to cheaper housing in deprived areas.
I can bet you that a lot of people would all of a sudden find jobs or money if they were told they would be relocated 250 miles away to some old mining town in Wales....
Hitting sections that don't deserve it? Sorry but that's ********. So many of these morons just fire out kid after kid because they know the state will pay for them to have a house, phone, laptop, transport, etc, and more with every kid they pop out. We are probably the only country that advocates not thinking before having a child.
Also why the **** should these scumbags get more then someone who works for low wages? That is utterly unfair.
Do you even know what social services and other benefits covers? I'll mention a few; brand new laptop to search for a job, any new clothing/bedding/household goods a family wants (if you have enough kids) etc. They can even smash the **** out of these things and just ask for new ones and bam - the new goods arrive. Again, I've seen this first hand and it is disgusting how little respect these people have for anything and how it is a total mockery to anyone who works.
But hey, if you are happy to piss away trillions on that then never moan about anything in the UK as you know where all the money has gone.
Original post by paul514
I don't think residential care has ever been free at the point of use in this country. That said, I do take the point to some degree. There's probably a debate to be had over what exactly "healthcare" involves.
It won't even affect the savvy or rich either as they will put their assets in trust for their estate meaning it will escape being considered as an asset.
That's a problem, but this is a manifesto commitment, not a white paper or anything. It's hardly going to go into the level of detail required to discuss how it will address potential avoidance.
Original post by Jimbo1234
You can fix disability and housing easily. First off the figures don't add up e.g. the amount of people with actual disabilities e.g. MS, cerebral palsy etc and the huge amount claiming benefits over "back ache". I actually have seen this first hand and the system is abused horrifically by the underclass.
Housing - move the people to cheap areas. If you live in an area with jobs e.g. within an hour of a major city, then you are either choosing not to work or have so few skill you are unemployable. In that case move them to cheaper housing in deprived areas.
I can bet you that a lot of people would all of a sudden find jobs or money if they were told they would be relocated 250 miles away to some old mining town in Wales....
Hitting sections that don't deserve it? Sorry but that's ********. So many of these morons just fire out kid after kid because they know the state will pay for them to have a house, phone, laptop, transport, etc, and more with every kid they pop out. We are probably the only country that advocates not thinking before having a child.
Also why the **** should these scumbags get more then someone who works for low wages? That is utterly unfair.
Do you even know what social services and other benefits covers? I'll mention a few; brand new laptop to search for a job, any new clothing/bedding/household goods a family wants (if you have enough kids) etc. They can even smash the **** out of these things and just ask for new ones and bam - the new goods arrive. Again, I've seen this first hand and it is disgusting how little respect these people have for anything and how it is a total mockery to anyone who works.
But hey, if you are happy to piss away trillions on that then never moan about anything in the UK as you know where all the money has gone.
Housing - move the people to cheap areas. If you live in an area with jobs e.g. within an hour of a major city, then you are either choosing not to work or have so few skill you are unemployable. In that case move them to cheaper housing in deprived areas.
I can bet you that a lot of people would all of a sudden find jobs or money if they were told they would be relocated 250 miles away to some old mining town in Wales....
Hitting sections that don't deserve it? Sorry but that's ********. So many of these morons just fire out kid after kid because they know the state will pay for them to have a house, phone, laptop, transport, etc, and more with every kid they pop out. We are probably the only country that advocates not thinking before having a child.
Also why the **** should these scumbags get more then someone who works for low wages? That is utterly unfair.
Do you even know what social services and other benefits covers? I'll mention a few; brand new laptop to search for a job, any new clothing/bedding/household goods a family wants (if you have enough kids) etc. They can even smash the **** out of these things and just ask for new ones and bam - the new goods arrive. Again, I've seen this first hand and it is disgusting how little respect these people have for anything and how it is a total mockery to anyone who works.
But hey, if you are happy to piss away trillions on that then never moan about anything in the UK as you know where all the money has gone.
The only response your post deserves is distain at your ignorance.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Jimbo1234
You can fix disability and housing easily. First off the figures don't add up e.g. the amount of people with actual disabilities e.g. MS, cerebral palsy etc and the huge amount claiming benefits over "back ache". I actually have seen this first hand and the system is abused horrifically by the underclass.
They're trying to do this at the moment and it's costing them far more money.
Original post by Jimbo1234
Its realistic but stupid.
Instead of hitting retired folks who are sick, the tories need to raid the disgusting benefits bill and reduce it from £125 BILLION (that does not include pensions) a year to £50 billion. Then with the money saved they could pay to make 1000 care homes a year and fund them for free.
Instead of hitting retired folks who are sick, the tories need to raid the disgusting benefits bill and reduce it from £125 BILLION (that does not include pensions) a year to £50 billion. Then with the money saved they could pay to make 1000 care homes a year and fund them for free.
Sorry, point of information. Jobseekers allowance is only £4.9 billion. This is neither here nor there compared to the £74 billion paid to pensioners from the Social Security bill
https://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/1/9/1357739565544/Public-spending-on-Benefi-001.jpg
When you talk about saving money from welfare, just exactly what are you talking about because we do not spend £125 billion on scroungers if that is your thinking.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Cameron-comeback, opinions?
- Should i vote Labour?
- Who regrets the outcome of Brexit??
- Do I need to mention I am in university in UCAS application?
- Reshuffle: David Cameron is back and Braverman sacked
- Breach of employment contract
- Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police review
- Living situation
- Rethinking the nation state - what a Labour Government could do
- Gillian Keegan: Headteachers should pick up absent pupils from home
- Student Finance Eligibility issue !!
- Have the Tories stopped being Conservative?
- Boris Johnson ‘can’t remember passcode’ to phone with Covid WhatsApp messages
- Top universities ‘will turn away more UK students’
- How fast do you progress up the pay scale? (NHS)
- Teachers in the NEU in Wales and England set to go on strike once again
- Politics essay analysis
- Edexcel IGCSE biology exam
- If you think you will be rich as a dentist you're mistaken (I'm an associate Dentist)
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Amazon Apprenticeships 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
Official University of the Arts London Applicant Thread for 2024Last reply 1 minute ago
What happens if i dont manage to find housing for second yr?- Uni of BathLast reply 1 minute ago
AQA A Level History Paper 2 (7042/2A-2T) - 7th June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 4 minutes ago
Official London School of Economics and Political Science 2024 Applicant ThreadLast reply 15 minutes ago
Amazon Project management apprenticeship 2024Last reply 17 minutes ago
AQA A Level History Paper 1 (7042/1A-1L) - 23rd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 16 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
