Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Why does the SNP have an obsession with J.K. Rowling, apart from them being obsessed with the rest of the universe not being scottish enough.
Probably something to do with the million she donated to the No campaign last year.
Swiss results for those who are interested (provisional) SVP: 65 (+ 11) - populist right, think UKIP FDP: 33 (+3) - pro-business right, think George Osborne CVP: 28 (- 1) - Catholic centrist, think Angela Merkel BDP: 8 (- 1) - secular centrist, think old Liberal party GLP: 6 (-6) - Green Liberals - what it says in the name SP: 44 (-2) - leftish Socialists, think Andy Burnham Grüne: 9 (-6) - greens, think Caroline Lucas EVP: 2 - minor evangelical centrist Lega: 2 - not sure MCG: 1 - not sure PdA 1 (+1) - communist AL: 1 - not sure
This gives the right+far right a majority, though the SVP and FDP have little in common. The Greens were a bit unlucky, only lost 0.7% but narrowly pipped all over the place.
Would you be able to confirm who the far right party you allude to is?
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
On the subject of JK Rowling, I'm just rereading the Harry Potter series (an inevitable consequence of having a seven year old daughter). They are rather better than I remembered. Although they are seriously dark for seven year olds.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying they are the best thing since Roald Dahl.
(My daughter has taken to pretending to be asleep when we go to check on her, so she can continue reading. The other day I caught her reading Harry Potter at 12:30am on a school night. She then fell asleep during a lesson at school the next day, causing my wife to get a bollocking...)
I think books 1-3 are outstanding childrens' literature, which can be just as easily enjoyed by adults.
Books 4-7 are badly bloated, and you just have to skip to the good bits.
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
As you are now aware, the state pension is a benefit. Public sector pensions, however, are not. An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
ie they do not count real money , just made up funny money
Its not Westminster's fault Holyrood doesn't spend all the money it gives it.....
Don't talk mince, there was a small contingency amount that is carried forward, bit better than Westminster -100+ Billion.
Because Holyrood must run a surplus, by law.
Pity Westminster did not have similar skills
So Osborne should have cut harder and faster?
Perhaps they should not be forcing Scotland to run a surplus when they are running massive deficits, especially when we have to fund it out of the pocket money we get back from them. Bit of fair play would be nice.
Except that Osborne is cutting the deficit he inherited every year and once its into surplus he's setting a legal requirement for Westminster surpluses too. Osborne has categorically never expanded a deficit.
If Scotland wants to deteriorate its books into running deficits, something Osborne has never done, then that is something they should do as an independent sovereign nation.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is JK Rowling currently a "whore" a "traitor" a "bitch" or a "c**t"
On the subject of JK Rowling, I'm just rereading the Harry Potter series (an inevitable consequence of having a seven year old daughter). They are rather better than I remembered. Although they are seriously dark for seven year olds.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying they are the best thing since Roald Dahl.
(My daughter has taken to pretending to be asleep when we go to check on her, so she can continue reading. The other day I caught her reading Harry Potter at 12:30am on a school night. She then fell asleep during a lesson at school the next day, causing my wife to get a bollocking...)
I think books 1-3 are outstanding childrens' literature, which can be just as easily enjoyed by adults.
Books 4-7 are badly bloated, and you just have to skip to the good bits.
They are too long, I agree. The good bits are great, but they could all do with having 30-50% cut out of them.
"I am sorry this reply is so long, but I didn't have the time to make it shorter."
On the subject of JK Rowling, I'm just rereading the Harry Potter series (an inevitable consequence of having a seven year old daughter). They are rather better than I remembered. Although they are seriously dark for seven year olds.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying they are the best thing since Roald Dahl.
(My daughter has taken to pretending to be asleep when we go to check on her, so she can continue reading. The other day I caught her reading Harry Potter at 12:30am on a school night. She then fell asleep during a lesson at school the next day, causing my wife to get a bollocking...)
Mrs J is a serious Harry Potter fan. When the last book was released, I found myself standing outside a Cambridgeshire bookshop at midnight with two other men. Inside the shop were a bunch of kids in pyjamas listening to the last chapter of the sixth book being read out. One man said to the other: "Your daughter?" The man replied: "Yes." They looked at me: "My girlfriend."
Given that almost everyone there was under sixteen, they moved a few yards away from me ...
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is all the SNP hatred towards J.K. Rowling because Harry Potter isn't scottish?
Any SNP volunteers to answer the question?
Some of the Yessers are veering very close to a quasi-Fascist definition of Scottishness and Scotland. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei: the SNP. All others are traitors.
Of course they are, I was one of the first over here to accuse Salmond of being a scottish Mussolini over their authoritarian policies and style. Thankfully for the people living in scotland they are still part of Britain so Salmond cannot proclaim himself as supreme dictator and rule over them with an iron fist.
On public sector pensions, it is worth remembering that there are certain parts of the public sector where all is fully funded. (That is, there is a Defined Contribution Scheme with owns assets - shares, bonds, etc. - that are able to cover future liabilities.)
There are, on the other hand, other parts of the public sector which are all "pay as you go" where there has been no provision for future pension payments.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is all the SNP hatred towards J.K. Rowling because Harry Potter isn't scottish?
Any SNP volunteers to answer the question?
Some of the Yessers are veering very close to a quasi-Fascist definition of Scottishness and Scotland. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei: the SNP. All others are traitors.
Of course they are, I was one of the first over here to accuse Salmond of being a scottish Mussolini over their authoritarian policies and style. Thankfully for the people living in scotland they are still part of Britain so Salmond cannot proclaim himself as supreme dictator and rule over them with an iron fist.
I agree with getting rid of them at the same speed that wages rise.
The employer subsidy that tax credits have become are too expensive.
The mistake the Government makes is to think that they can cut them well before any rises in wages kick in.
I am even more in favour of getting rid of the triple lock on Pensions, should be linked to inflation, thats the maximum the country can afford.
This is the nub of it. I gave a certain government minister who shall remain nameless a total bollocking about this in a public meeting. The principle is sound, raise the minimum wage and dump the hugely expensive tax credits (Except for some tightly targeted areas). But you cant just cut off the tax credits in 2016 when the full rise doesnt come in to 2020. Phase the bugger in. Its not hard.
I told him that it is not only ridiculous, it is something that the Government *will* backtrack on. Theyll either do it now or nearer the time. I suggested that the Autumn Statement might be a good opportunity to announce some better than expected receipts somewhere or other and with that we are going to ease the transition.
If he couldnt stand up to a pasty tax, he aint going to stand up to this.
It started out as a sunny day at Twickenham but ended like that infamous rain-soaked night in Newcastle in 2012, but with a crucial twist. This time it was the Wallabies with the match-winning penalty as the rain poured down. Bernard Foley nailed it but the real focus will now begin on referee Craig Joubert. Replays showed the final penalty was generous to the men in gold, and he had already gifted the men in gold an earlier try with a brutally harsh yellow card on Scotland winger Sean Maitland.
Still, the get out of jail card has been used courtesy of Mr Joubert. It may turn out to the escape the Wallabies needed,
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
As you are now aware, the state pension is a benefit. Public sector pensions, however, are not. An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
What's with the quotes around "Rangers", as well. (Not my quotes, which are, I believe, correctly used rather than implying that Rangers is some euphemism for, say, traitorous unionist pig-dogs).
Is it that unionists are protestant and independents are catholic? If that's the dichotomy then an Indy Scotland sounds like it would be a fun place?
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
As you are now aware, the state pension is a benefit. Public sector pensions, however, are not. An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
A benefit of what? My paying for it for 48 years?
You have been paying other people's pensions for 48 years. In return, future taxpayers may pay yours, if they feel generous enough.
Wings over Somerset is having a nervous breakdown, live on Twitter
If only there was someone who was prolific at copying and pasting on this site.
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 26m26 minutes ago I feel better now. JK's wee troll army have taken my mind off that clown Joubert.
The J.K Rowling troll army?
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland 6m6 minutes ago I had no idea the Venn intersection between JK Rowling and "Rangers" fans was so big until tonight.
J.K. RowlingVerified account @jk_rowling 1h1 hour ago J.K. Rowling Retweeted Wings Over S******d I know Scotland's a nation. I live there, you see. I pay tax there and I contribute more than bile there.
this tweet was in reply to the following....
Wings Over S******d @WingsScotland Wings Over S******d Retweeted J.K. Rowling You two can both fuck off. You don't think we're a nation at all.
Is all the SNP hatred towards J.K. Rowling because Harry Potter isn't scottish?
Any SNP volunteers to answer the question?
Some of the Yessers are veering very close to a quasi-Fascist definition of Scottishness and Scotland. Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Partei: the SNP. All others are traitors.
Of course they are, I was one of the first over here to accuse Salmond of being a scottish Mussolini over their authoritarian policies and style. Thankfully for the people living in scotland they are still part of Britain so Salmond cannot proclaim himself as supreme dictator and rule over them with an iron fist.
I wonder if all nationalisms tend, in the end, to Fascism. When you're entirely obsesssed with nationality and identity and blood and soil you're already halfway there.
A man seized of any idea, sufficiently strongly, will tend to authoritarianism of one kind or another.
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
As you are now aware, the state pension is a benefit. Public sector pensions, however, are not. An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
If I were a young person in the UK and looking at the clowns on PB who state that my pension is a benefit which could be taken away at any time..after contributing for 50 years ..then I would refuse to pay any more into the scheme and put the money into a proper investment for my old age..
Earlier in the thread there was reference to ex ukip MEP Janice Atkinson referring to a lady as a ting tong, the lady's husband is Vince Munday who is a ukip councillor in Thanet. Janice Atkinson is now an independent MEP.
As you are now aware, the state pension is a benefit. Public sector pensions, however, are not. An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
Public sector pensions are largely funded through taxation. Individual employees are minority contributors.
The"employers" contribution is a taxpayer subsidy.
The state pension is not universal. It is dependent on minimum contribution levels in RITYs (Relevant Income Tax Years) paid at the appropriate class and for a set minimum of years in order to get anything.
If I were a young person in the UK and looking at the clowns on PB who state that my pension is a benefit which could be taken away at any time..after contributing for 50 years ..then I would refuse to pay any more into the scheme and put the money into a proper investment for my old age..
I pay into for lots of things I might not get back.
I pay for other people's social care, for their marriage allowances, their child benefit.
I get none of these things, and tomorrow they might be cancelled.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
On the subject of JK Rowling, I'm just rereading the Harry Potter series (an inevitable consequence of having a seven year old daughter). They are rather better than I remembered. Although they are seriously dark for seven year olds.
In fact, I'd go as far as saying they are the best thing since Roald Dahl.
(My daughter has taken to pretending to be asleep when we go to check on her, so she can continue reading. The other day I caught her reading Harry Potter at 12:30am on a school night. She then fell asleep during a lesson at school the next day, causing my wife to get a bollocking...)
I must be one of the few people who's never 'got' Harry Potter, and I have tried.
I wonder if all nationalisms tend, in the end, to Fascism. When you're entirely obsesssed with nationality and identity and blood and soil you're already halfway there.
That nats always say that theirs is a civic nationalism, but that is bollocks, as their supporters amply demonstrate time after time after time.
TWR errr no.. totally wrong on all counts..you would not expect to get a monetary return on any of those items you cite...whereas ..if you pay into a pension scheme..you expect to get a pension
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
Assuming the turnout amongst them is the same as the overall population.
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
I was going to do the morning thread on that analysis being a load of spheroids.
As for the 44% of UKIP voters who can imagine a coup, maybe they are wishfully thinking of the right wing dictatorships in Portugal*, Spain and Greece in 1950 - 1970s era; or maybe remembering Rhodesia.....
* yes I know the military overthrew the dictatorship in 1974 so the coup in Portugal military in a good way which is why I used the word dictatorship
Those were the good old days.
I note most Tories would support armed intervention if the UK became a Republic.
I wonder if all nationalisms tend, in the end, to Fascism. When you're entirely obsesssed with nationality and identity and blood and soil you're already halfway there.
That nats always say that theirs is a civic nationalism, but that is bollocks, as their supporters amply demonstrate time after time after time.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already
Edit: snipping (very reluctantly) the video of the loser
The State Pension is welfare. There is not savings pot, it is paid out of the current account. It is the very definition of Welfare.
As stated below the state pension defined by how much you pay in, the minimum being 10 years and the maximum 30 years. It is a contributory pension and not welfare.
If however I do not have enough to live on I can claim Pension Credit, council tax benefit etc.
That is welfare, a contributory state pension is not.
TWR errr no.. totally wrong on all counts..you would not expect to get a monetary return on any of those items you cite...whereas ..if you pay into a pension scheme..you expect to get a pension
I don't pay into a government pension scheme.
All I do is pay tax and national insurance, and neither is a pension scheme.
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
By definition everything that is not policing and defence is part of the welfare state, so pensions are a benefit since it is part of welfare.
Steve Webb:
“Absolutely rightly, it is yours by right, you have paid your national insurance contributions. There's a certain amount of stigma about claiming benefits, when people draw their state pension that's not how they think of it.”
Steve Webb is wrong. Not the first time and almost certainly not the last.
Why wouldn't the federal council seat come from the BDP rather than the FDP/SP?
I think it will.
In reply to the other question, the "far right" party - actually I think I said populist right? - is the SVP. It rose to significance under Blocher, who is cut from the same sort of cloth as Farage. They provisionally peaked 8 years ago, when Blocher joined the broad coalition government. They then fell back last time but have now bounced back to their previous peak (and a little more), though the variation in votes is only around 1%. They are not lunatics or neo-Nazis, but they are definitely populist with an aggressive campaigning style which stands out from the otherwise consensus-oriented Swiss parties.
As Speedy notes, Switzerland has a more or less all-party government, but the centre-left restricted the SVP to 1 of the 7 seats on the governing council. I doubt if they can now reasonably be denied a second one. It isn't terribly important since all major decisions are taken by referendum, but it'd be fair to say it reflects general unease about immigration.
It will clearly be impossible and unaffordable to reverse them by 2020 IMO.
Still think its time to share the pain of benefit cuts with OAPs.
Then we will see how popular the Welfare State is or isn't
Its ridiculous to increase pensions by 2.5% in a period of deflation IMO
Wow, a rare point of agreement BJO! The triple lock is economic vandalism.
Economic vandalism I agree but who expects politicians to do anything about it. This year with negative inflation would be the best opportunity but cant see it.
Had numerous discussions with the "paid in all my life" lobby who basically are robbing their Grand Kids IMO
So by paying in for 48 years I am robbing my grandkids? Wow.
Out of interest I think you said you retired from the NHS at 54 on a big pension. How much of the NHS budget is spent on paying gold plated pensions, and do you think you are denying people treatment when you get your pension each month?
Well clearly our Grand Kids will have to work longer than 48 years to afford the Triple Lock so IMO you are.
Re my circumstances which for you it comes back to in almost every trolling post I could clearly use your paid in all my life argument but that would be ridiculous.
I don't disagree that the Triple Lock is unsustainable but that's not my argument, my point is that the State Pension is not welfare.
I have never trolled anyone in my life, but if you are in the business of calling state pensions welfare then l feel it only right that I should point out you have been drawing a public sector pension since you were 54.
But as you say you paid into it all your life. Double standards and all that.
By definition everything that is not policing and defence is part of the welfare state, so pensions are a benefit since it is part of welfare.
Steve Webb:
“Absolutely rightly, it is yours by right, you have paid your national insurance contributions. There's a certain amount of stigma about claiming benefits, when people draw their state pension that's not how they think of it.”
Steve Webb is wrong. Not the first time and almost certainly not the last.
So a state pension is not yours by right assuming you have paid the necessary contributions?
Bishops are saying we should do more for refugees, setting aside whether or not that is right, what % of the population listens to bishops?
I'd be amazed if that figure is as high as 1%
What struck me is the very modest figure the Bishops suggested, which makes me think that the Bishops are wary of public opinion going against them. 50,000 over five years will barely put a dent in the problem when 3 million Syrians have already left the country.
So the State pension that I will have paid into for 48 years by the time I receive it is welfare?
I could happily live without the fuel allowance, bus pass or TV license but why should something I have paid into for 48 years be classed as welfare?
You never paid into a state pension.
You paid into a Ponzi Scheme which, like all Ponzi Schemes fails when the number of new entrants required to pay existing commitments becomes unsustainable.
Either you increase immigration to about 1 million per annum (increasing over time) or abolish the Ponzi Scheme.
So the State pension that I will have paid into for 48 years by the time I receive it is welfare?
I could happily live without the fuel allowance, bus pass or TV license but why should something I have paid into for 48 years be classed as welfare?
You never paid into a state pension.
You paid into a Ponzi Scheme which, like all Ponzi Schemes fails when the number of new entrants required to pay existing commitments becomes unsustainable.
Either you increase immigration to about 1 million per annum (increasing over time) or abolish the Ponzi Scheme.
Does that assume that all 1 million would be tax payers and not claiming benefits themselves (real benefits, not a state pension)
So a state pension is not yours by right assuming you have paid the necessary contributions?
Well it's a view I suppose.
Why would it be? Contributions are not ring-fenced.
There is no pot with my name on it. I haven't signed any contract to that effect. On the contrary, I would be a fool to assume that there will be a pension waiting for me in 25 years time.
My "contributions" as you put it have already been spent on Brown's debt repayment and International Aid. Plus a couple of other things, maybe, but hyperbole insists I stop at two emotive examples.
All I do is pay tax and national insurance, and neither is a pension scheme.
The national insurance comes with a specific, individual commitment to the contributor though.
Of course, the government - like any pension company - can breach that if it gets it's sums wrong - but the commitment/promise is to an individual, whereas tax is a general commitment.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
So the State pension that I will have paid into for 48 years by the time I receive it is welfare?
I could happily live without the fuel allowance, bus pass or TV license but why should something I have paid into for 48 years be classed as welfare?
You never paid into a state pension.
You paid into a Ponzi Scheme which, like all Ponzi Schemes fails when the number of new entrants required to pay existing commitments becomes unsustainable.
Either you increase immigration to about 1 million per annum (increasing over time) or abolish the Ponzi Scheme.
Or adjust the age at which you can claim a pension.
blackburn63.. I am amazed that there are over 80 bishops in the CofE..80 snake oil salesmen living high off the hog and telling the rest of us to do what they are not doing..None of them will be living in less than a four bedroom high quality home with the usual staff.car etc.. Hypocrites..
Bishops are saying we should do more for refugees, setting aside whether or not that is right, what % of the population listens to bishops?
I'd be amazed if that figure is as high as 1%
What struck me is the very modest figure the Bishops suggested, which makes me think that the Bishops are wary of public opinion going against them. 50,000 over five years will barely put a dent in the problem when 3 million Syrians have already left the country.
Yes indeed - I think we could take more too, but the number they have set as an 'at least' figure seems awfully arbitrary. 20,000 is outrageous but 50,000 is a ok? No doubt there are some people, though not as many, who think anything less than 100,000 is outrageous.
All I do is pay tax and national insurance, and neither is a pension scheme.
The national insurance comes with a specific, individual commitment to the contributor though.
Of course, the government - like any pension company - can breach that if it gets it's sums wrong - but the commitment/promise is to an individual, whereas tax is a general commitment.
Has it? Does it?
I can't sue them for breach of contract, the price for changing the state pension rules is political, same for any other benefit.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Not really followed this have you? I don't retire for six years
If the Government cannot guarantee paying a pension then it should not take the money..It is usually called theft..
I pay my national insurance and taxes, in return I get whatever benefits the government chooses to offer, and a part in deciding those. I'd be angry if they cut things I thought I would get, and I'd vote for someone else. That's normal - think child tax credit.
All I do is pay tax and national insurance, and neither is a pension scheme.
The national insurance comes with a specific, individual commitment to the contributor though.
Of course, the government - like any pension company - can breach that if it gets it's sums wrong - but the commitment/promise is to an individual, whereas tax is a general commitment.
Could you point me towards the contract I signed in relation to this, please? I'd like to check the small print of this 'commitment' thingy.
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
You are wildly underestimating it. Working tax credits are VERY widespread among the C2 demographic, and according to an IPSOS-MORI post-election poll the Tories tied with Labour on 32% each with that group.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
“Absolutely rightly, it is yours by right, you have paid your national insurance contributions. There's a certain amount of stigma about claiming benefits, when people draw their state pension that's not how they think of it.”
Steve Webb is wrong. Not the first time and almost certainly not the last.
So a state pension is not yours by right assuming you have paid the necessary contributions?
Well it's a view I suppose.
When I started paying NI, I was told I would get the state pension at 65. Now I won't get it until I'm 66. In a democracy everything is reversible.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
If I were a young person in the UK and looking at the clowns on PB who state that my pension is a benefit which could be taken away at any time..after contributing for 50 years ..then I would refuse to pay any more into the scheme and put the money into a proper investment for my old age..
You can't. That is the whole point. It is a system designed to pay the pensions of those who are retired now, not those who retire in the future. It has always been that way and it is a myth that you should automatically get out because you put in. It was always devised as part of the social security benefits system which is why it was set up by the same act that gave you widows benefits, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. It was always known - quite correctly - as Old Age Benefit.
I notice the left often quote 'populist' when a government does something they don't like. Surely the whole point of government is to reflect populist opinion and of course even better if it is in the National interest. See the shadow chancellor is going to reverse all the tax credit changes. Does that mean he will reduce the National Living Wage back to 2015 levels. The man is wholly unsuitable for government
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Earlier in the thread there was reference to ex ukip MEP Janice Atkinson referring to a lady as a ting tong, the lady's husband is Vince Munday who is a ukip councillor in Thanet. Janice Atkinson is now an independent MEP.
Atkinson was second on the southern list after Farage when she made the ting tong remark. Munday is now emigrating to Thailand. Atkinson left ukip after being found out for overcharging expenses to fund the party. She seems a pretty horrible woman and whilst it's only partially a direct link to UKIP, its says little for them that with her history she was able to get such a high position on Ukip's list. Given the EU group she has joined I think we can all now safely wash our hands of her at last.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
Really? Why?
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
It's only hilarious if you think that UKIP supporters are swivel eyed racist little Englanders. UKIP supporters are in favour of a merit-based immigration system rather than the current European racist one.
Was not this the Thai woman that the kipper Atkinson made the ting tong remark about? I did not think they were in UKIP any more.
Ting Tong was a character in BBC - yes, BBC! - sketch show "Little Britain"
If I were a young person in the UK and looking at the clowns on PB who state that my pension is a benefit which could be taken away at any time..after contributing for 50 years ..then I would refuse to pay any more into the scheme and put the money into a proper investment for my old age..
You can't. That is the whole point. It is a system designed to pay the pensions of those who are retired now, not those who retire in the future. It has always been that way and it is a myth that you should automatically get out because you put in. It was always devised as part of the social security benefits system which is why it was set up by the same act that gave you widows benefits, unemployment benefit and sickness benefit. It was always known - quite correctly - as Old Age Benefit.
No it wasn't, it was always known as the Old Age Pension.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
You and I agree on very many things. It turns out that there are very occasional exceptions and this is one.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
Really? Why?
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
You and I agree on very many things. It turns out that there are very occasional exceptions and this is one.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
To quote from the IFS briefing note on pensions:
"Faced with the significant immediate bill of paying pensions to individuals who had not made contributions, the government opted to introduce a ‘pay-as-you-go’ system rather than a funded one. Individuals paid contributions (known as National Insurance (NI) contributions), but instead of the level of these being related to an individual’s own future pension benefits (as Beveridge had envisaged), they were related to what was needed to fund the benefits of current pensioners."
It should be obvious really. Given that all pensioners were entitled to a pension once the act was brought in it stands to reason that the only way the system could work without a massive and unaffordable injection of funds from general taxation was for the contributions being made by the workers to be used to pay for those who had already retired. As far as the basic state pension is concerned it is the way it was designed and the way it has always worked.
Total meldtown by prominent Nats on Twitter, following Joubergate
Feels like that time England were done out of the Euros vs Portugal by that c*** of a ref. Urs Meier I believe.
My German colleagues still refer to the "third" goal in 1966.
True story, my brother knows the guys who set up the security systems for Deutsche Bank at Canary Wharf. They have two floors there, it took them a couple of years to realize the significance of the four digit entry code for each floor:
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
Disagree as much as you want, you're still wrong.
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
Disagree as much as you want, you're still wrong.
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
Trying to draw a line under this as it has gone on too long, but I note you didn't answer my previous point.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
Really? Why?
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
Somebody from the institute of physics helped to draw up the guidelines, which have been picked up by the dept of education. I suppose we could blame Cameron if it rains tomorrow morning. Certainly the poor take of sciences by girls should be a concern.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
So you are saying that when the state pension was introduced no one received a state pension for 30 years until they built up their contributions?
Is the analysis that 71 Con MPs are under threat re Tax Credits meant to be serious?
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
You are wildly underestimating it. Working tax credits are VERY widespread among the C2 demographic, and according to an IPSOS-MORI post-election poll the Tories tied with Labour on 32% each with that group.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
lol. Latest poll: Labour THIRTEEN points behind.
Oh come on, be serious. A thirteen point deficit is really easy to overcome, especially if it is recorded during a leader's honeymoon period, where traditionally they record terribly low polling figures.
@Josiasjessup Turkey is stuck in a hard place between European secular liberal society to the west, and increasing islamism to the east. Deeply worrying, especially as the current leadership appears to be creeping towards islamism, possibly entirely in a bid to increase the longevity of their own power. Not good for the majority of Turks. Or the minority of Kurds.
As for wavering over the Lib Dems, can I suggest you - and anyone else who is thinking about it - invest a little time in watching Nick Clegg's resignation speech if you have not done so already https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiYl0otgSvc especially from 4:35 onwards. And if that does not convince you, then Tim Farron's first leader's speech to conference http://www.libdems.org.uk/autumn-conference-2015-tim-farron
I find myself torn. I really like and rate Cameron (as people on here might have noticed), yet am less favourable towards the party he leads. I also despise Labour in its current form (although I merely disliked it under Miliband), and liked Clegg (although a friend of mine who met him in a professional capacity did not rate him).
I was saying that Farron might be a good leader on here a few years ago, but he's almost invisible in the media at the moment. I want to know where he's positioning the party, what a Farronite (what an ugly word!) Lib Dem party believes in. His conference speech did not really help when I watched it back.
I'm either going to join the Conservatives or the Lib Dems. Which would make me a socially left-wing Conservative, or a socially right-wing Lib Dem. Perhaps.
All I know is I want Labour under Corbyn to fail. Which is an utterly negative and poor reason to join a political party, but there you go.
I'm one of the people who rather likes the Conservative Party, but rather dislikes David Cameron.
Really? Why?
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
Somebody from the institute of physics helped to draw up the guidelines, which have been picked up by the dept of education. I suppose we could blame Cameron if it rains tomorrow morning. Certainly the poor take of sciences by girls should be a concern.
A Conservative government shouldn't just be nodding through stuff that the educational establishment comes up with.
You haven't paid into anything. There is no pension pot. Your contributions went to paying the pension of OAPs back then. My contributions are going to pay your pension right now.
Alistair and Dair both completely spot-on tonight with this. I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
Totally disagree, and so do several others.
To quote from the IFS briefing note on pensions:
"Faced with the significant immediate bill of paying pensions to individuals who had not made contributions, the government opted to introduce a ‘pay-as-you-go’ system rather than a funded one. Individuals paid contributions (known as National Insurance (NI) contributions), but instead of the level of these being related to an individual’s own future pension benefits (as Beveridge had envisaged), they were related to what was needed to fund the benefits of current pensioners."
It should be obvious really. Given that all pensioners were entitled to a pension once the act was brought in it stands to reason that the only way the system could work without a massive and unaffordable injection of funds from general taxation was for the contributions being made by the workers to be used to pay for those who had already retired. As far as the basic state pension is concerned it is the way it was designed and the way it has always worked.
None of that means it is a benefit.
And it was called the Old Age Pension following the Act in 1908.
Just a small thing, in today's Sunday Times, which absolutely sums up what I dislike about Cameron. The government wants to ban the use of phrases like "man up" at schools because this is "sexist". This government is probably worse than Blair's in it's desire to monitor and police speech.
Somebody from the institute of physics helped to draw up the guidelines, which have been picked up by the dept of education. I suppose we could blame Cameron if it rains tomorrow morning. Certainly the poor take of sciences by girls should be a concern.
A Conservative government shouldn't just be nodding through stuff that the educational establishment comes up with.
Comments
Books 4-7 are badly bloated, and you just have to skip to the good bits.
Public sector pensions, however, are not.
An NHS pension is part of the cost of the health service, a police pension is part of the cost of the police service and a soldier's pension is part of the cost of the military.
If Scotland wants to deteriorate its books into running deficits, something Osborne has never done, then that is something they should do as an independent sovereign nation.
"I am sorry this reply is so long, but I didn't have the time to make it shorter."
Given that almost everyone there was under sixteen, they moved a few yards away from me ...
Can anyone spot who claims most benefits?
Thankfully for the people living in scotland they are still part of Britain so Salmond cannot proclaim himself as supreme dictator and rule over them with an iron fist.
There are, on the other hand, other parts of the public sector which are all "pay as you go" where there has been no provision for future pension payments.
I told him that it is not only ridiculous, it is something that the Government *will* backtrack on. Theyll either do it now or nearer the time. I suggested that the Autumn Statement might be a good opportunity to announce some better than expected receipts somewhere or other and with that we are going to ease the transition.
If he couldnt stand up to a pasty tax, he aint going to stand up to this.
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
Benefits are not like that which is why it is inappropriate to lump pensions in with benefits.
If other benefits had to be contributed to for thirty years first then they'd be viewed completely differently.
https://www.gov.uk/new-state-pension
it's just a de facto residency test, of the sort we're trying to bring in vis-a-vis EU nationals for other benefits.
The"employers" contribution is a taxpayer subsidy.
The state pension is not universal. It is dependent on minimum contribution levels in RITYs (Relevant Income Tax Years) paid at the appropriate class and for a set minimum of years in order to get anything.
I pay for other people's social care, for their marriage allowances, their child benefit.
I get none of these things, and tomorrow they might be cancelled.
Same for the state pension.
I loved Roald Dahl. Much superior.
A child in primary school would realise it's completely nonsensical.
It assumes EVERYONE affected by Tax Credit cuts voted Con at the GE.
Well we know for starters that only 25% of the whole adult population voted Con.
Then we need to factor in that recipients of large amounts of benefits will be much less likely than average to vote Con. So what proportion of such people voted Con? I would have thought 20% at the absolute maximum; and probably much nearer 15%.
How many Con MPs lose even if we then assume that every single one of those 15% switch their votes?
I'd be amazed if that figure is as high as 1%
I'd quite forgotten how much I laughed first time around.
That's really cheered me up.
If however I do not have enough to live on I can claim Pension Credit, council tax benefit etc.
That is welfare, a contributory state pension is not.
All I do is pay tax and national insurance, and neither is a pension scheme.
In reply to the other question, the "far right" party - actually I think I said populist right? - is the SVP. It rose to significance under Blocher, who is cut from the same sort of cloth as Farage. They provisionally peaked 8 years ago, when Blocher joined the broad coalition government. They then fell back last time but have now bounced back to their previous peak (and a little more), though the variation in votes is only around 1%. They are not lunatics or neo-Nazis, but they are definitely populist with an aggressive campaigning style which stands out from the otherwise consensus-oriented Swiss parties.
As Speedy notes, Switzerland has a more or less all-party government, but the centre-left restricted the SVP to 1 of the 7 seats on the governing council. I doubt if they can now reasonably be denied a second one. It isn't terribly important since all major decisions are taken by referendum, but it'd be fair to say it reflects general unease about immigration.
Well it's a view I suppose.
You paid into a Ponzi Scheme which, like all Ponzi Schemes fails when the number of new entrants required to pay existing commitments becomes unsustainable.
Either you increase immigration to about 1 million per annum (increasing over time) or abolish the Ponzi Scheme.
There is no pot with my name on it. I haven't signed any contract to that effect.
On the contrary, I would be a fool to assume that there will be a pension waiting for me in 25 years time.
My "contributions" as you put it have already been spent on Brown's debt repayment and International Aid. Plus a couple of other things, maybe, but hyperbole insists I stop at two emotive examples.
Of course, the government - like any pension company - can breach that if it gets it's sums wrong - but the commitment/promise is to an individual, whereas tax is a general commitment.
I can't sue them for breach of contract, the price for changing the state pension rules is political, same for any other benefit.
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/
I'd like to check the small print of this 'commitment' thingy.
The Tories have HAD to, and will continue to have to, improve their performance with (white) low-paid workers, in order to compensate for Labour's growing share of the intellectual middle-class.
In a democracy everything is reversible.
I feel quite light-headed agreeing with you both. In a good way.
(sorry, couldn't keep agreeing with Dair all night. Not good for the karma)
Atkinson left ukip after being found out for overcharging expenses to fund the party. She seems a pretty horrible woman and whilst it's only partially a direct link to UKIP, its says little for them that with her history she was able to get such a high position on Ukip's list.
Given the EU group she has joined I think we can all now safely wash our hands of her at last.
It turns out that there are very occasional exceptions and this is one.
"Faced with the significant immediate bill of paying pensions to individuals who had not made contributions, the government opted to introduce a ‘pay-as-you-go’ system rather than a
funded one. Individuals paid contributions (known as National Insurance (NI) contributions), but instead of the level of these being related to an individual’s own future pension benefits (as Beveridge had envisaged), they were related to what was needed to fund the benefits of current pensioners."
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn105.pdf
It should be obvious really. Given that all pensioners were entitled to a pension once the act was brought in it stands to reason that the only way the system could work without a massive and unaffordable injection of funds from general taxation was for the contributions being made by the workers to be used to pay for those who had already retired. As far as the basic state pension is concerned it is the way it was designed and the way it has always worked.
1966 and 1945
The State Pension (and the vast bulk of Public Sector Pensions) are Ponzi Schemes and can easily be demonstrated to be such. As Ponzi Schemes they are reliant on new entrants as the source of money for existing beneficiaries and this will eventually snowball until the Scheme collapses.
The State Pension currently costs £6029.40 for every pensioner in the country (and abroad who have obligations built up when resident here).
The average income in the UK is around £25000 meaning that the average worker pays less than £3000 per annum in tax.
And it was called the Old Age Pension following the Act in 1908.