Jump to content

General Election 12 December.

nikki-red

This is NOT to become a second Brexit thread.

Thank you.

Message added by nikki-red

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Man in Crete said:

sorry I have missed something .......where does payment over 20/30/years come into it?

are you there please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pettytom said:

It is still the right thing to do The state grabbing so much from a group of pensioners is palpably wrong and needs sorting out. It is Lib Dem policy to do so too

The Liberal Democrats stated that the compensation will be decided in line with the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsmen, that sounds sensible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Pettytom said:

My mistake, apologies for that. 
The payments are spread over 5 years. 
 

It is still the right thing to do The state grabbing so much from a group of pensioners is palpably wrong and needs sorting out. It is Lib Dem policy to do so too

So it's an extra £11.6 billion a year that wasn't in their manifesto. 

 

Governments need to prioritise where money is spent, as (most) governments realise that you can't just borrow hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds ad infinitum without harsh economic consequences. I'm not sure that given the figures involved this should be a priority. There could be a middle ground. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So it's an extra £11.6 billion a year that wasn't in their manifesto. 

 

Governments need to prioritise where money is spent, as (most) governments realise that you can't just borrow hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds ad infinitum without harsh economic consequences. I'm not sure that given the figures involved this should be a priority. There could be a middle ground. 

Unless it's money to give to bail out the Banks. £350Billion in Quantatitive Easing raised just like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Unless it's money to give to bail out the Banks. £350Billion in Quantatitive Easing raised just like that. 

https://www.tutor2u.net/economics/blog/is-qe-a-magic-money-tree

 

"I think that many A level students would agree that QE can be quite hard to get their heads around. It's a help when they realise that it is not a process of 'printing money', as many journalists have described it since 2009." 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

So it's an extra £11.6 billion a year that wasn't in their manifesto. 

 

Governments need to prioritise where money is spent, as (most) governments realise that you can't just borrow hundreds and hundreds of billions of pounds ad infinitum without harsh economic consequences. I'm not sure that given the figures involved this should be a priority. There could be a middle ground. 

Well there could be middle ground, but £12bn a year is an extraordinary amount for a government to take from a group of citizens. Maybe that’s when the middle ground should have been found.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

Well there could be middle ground, but £12bn a year is an extraordinary amount for a government to take from a group of citizens. Maybe that’s when the middle ground should have been found.

Why isn't  Labour working out how much in benefits people have missed out on since these were frozen, or how much the public sector workers have missed out on since their wages were frozen, add it all up, and pay them back everything that has been 'taken' from them? They had much less notice, as the main pension changes were announced in 1995. What's the difference? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Why isn't  Labour working out how much in benefits people have missed out on since these were frozen, or how much the public sector workers have missed out on since their wages were frozen, add it all up, and pay them back everything that has been 'taken' from them? They had much less notice, as the main pension changes were announced in 1995. What's the difference? 

 

You seem very comfortable with the idea that the state can remove billions of pounds from a group  of female workers . Why aren’t you questioning the decision of the Tories  to impoverish these people.

 

It is a nasty piece of cost cutting. Typical Tory stuff though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Pettytom said:

You seem very comfortable with the idea that the state can remove billions of pounds from a group  of female workers . Why aren’t you questioning the decision of the Tories  to impoverish these people.

 

It is a nasty piece of cost cutting. Typical Tory stuff though.

The decision was made in 1993 (and made law in 1995) to address to the inequality between the fact that women retired earlier and lived longer, and so received more generous pensions in total than men.

 

Don't you think the pension age should be equalised? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

The decision was made in 1993 (and made law in 1995) to address to the inequality between the fact that women retired earlier and lived longer, and so received more generous pensions in total than men.

 

Don't you think the pension age should be equalised? 

I do think that the pension age should be equalised. I also think that people shouldn’t be impoverished whilst that is brought about.

 

The Tories think that it is wrong, but won’t do anything about it.

 

The Lib Dem’s think it is wrong and will probably do something about it. 
 

Labour think it is wrong and will do something about it.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the impoverishment of the Waspi women is ok.

 

Why is that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pettytom said:

I do think that the pension age should be equalised. I also think that people shouldn’t be impoverished whilst that is brought about.

 

The Tories think that it is wrong, but won’t do anything about it.

 

The Lib Dem’s think it is wrong and will probably do something about it. 
 

Labour think it is wrong and will do something about it.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to think that the impoverishment of the Waspi women is ok.

 

Why is that?

The Tories have already announced £1b in extra funding to mitigate people who were worst affected. Saying people are going to be 'impoverished' because of an 18 month delay to getting a state pension (a pension which is much more generous than it was when they were originally going to be getting it...) is hyperbole. 

 

The changes were announced in 1995 (and got quite a bit of media coverage).  It should not have come out of the blue. I appreciate that despite this, some women were not aware of the changes, and a Parliamentary Committee concluded that more could have been done to make those affected by the changes more aware, but that was mainly a failing of the previous Labour government as letters didn't really get sent out until 2009, and very little direct communication was done between 1997-2010. A lot more has been done since then, but of course as the date is closer, there is less time to prepare. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More info about these under the radar facebook ads

https://www.prweek.com/article/1666449/whos-behind-obscure-groups-funding-election-attack-campaigns-facebook

 

Quote

"PR professionals must not disseminate false or misleading information. Doing so damages trust in our industry and in this case – the political process. We urge communications professionals to be mindful of their ethical responsibilities, particularly during a period of national importance."

Quote

The potential for voters being misled is huge.

Edited by melthebell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.