fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What is the government doing about it? You said they were reparing public services?
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (13 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
What is the government doing about it? You said they were reparing public services?
RegTheDonk
Well-Known Member
That's probably true on 50p Pete, but she is doing a massive U-turn on what she actually said to camera. "...we will compensate them for the money they've lost".
Even if I don’t disagree with you, surely at some stage you have to concede that an overarching message of “You’re too dumb to understand we’re helping you” isn’t going to make it easier to pull the levers of government.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Reeves is going around acting like thatcher on steroids - the messaging is dire.
The press are claiming 100 may rebel against the waspi decision. I doubt in the end they’ll have the guts but like a lot of northern Tory MPs in the last government they will know that they are going to lose their job in 4.5 years if this carries on
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
I honestly don’t care. I’m not a Labour spokesman (insert joke here), I’m tired of the immediate chicken littleing of people who should know better.
Reform will probably get in. That’s the culture these days. It’ll be a laugh. It’ll be a change. I’ll be damned if I won’t go down being a snarky twat.
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah of course
However it’s £10bn
If it was socialist labour having a go I’d say ok as it’s Anderson and reform who don’t give a shit about social justice and equity they can stick it to their arse
Grendel
Well-Known Member
It’s still missing the point. It’s also not £10 billion now.
The fact is Labour opposed the tories not paying this. They have also gone harder than the tories in scrapping the WFA
Reeves will also have to row back on the pension IHT change unless she wants to alienate pretty much everyone outside the public sector.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
What a ridiculous position. You either believe politicians should be true to their word or you don't.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Sky Blue Pete
Well-Known Member
It’s not my position
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Socialism is some people getting compensation when their benefits change because they’re well connected but not others who aren’t.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
Socialism isn't selectively deciding on benefits according to a perception of somebody's existing wealth
duffer
Well-Known Member
Fuck me, is this a variation of the "Gregg" defence. It's only middle class women of a certain age that are complaining?
It seems like your definition of people who will suffer under WFA cuts, or who have suffered under WASPI is strictly limited to what Starmer tells you and based on opinion rather than inconvenient facts.
Grendel
Well-Known Member
Why is @Sky Blue Pete liking these increasingly deranged posts by Shmmeee
Grendel
Well-Known Member
He's a Male?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
Explain why these particular people in receipt of benefits should be compensated when they change and those for example in receipt of Universal Credit or PIP shouldn’t.
Explain what should be cut to enable us to pay everyone over a given age regardless of wealth £300 every year.
You are arguing for cutting services to give relatively well off people free money that other, arguably more deserving people don’t get. And you’re doing it because those affected yes include a lot of the middle class media class and can get coverage for their “plight” while people on their arse of working age get nothing.
So this goes back to the era of John Major with a Nurse from Hampshire who wanted to work on rather than retire leading to all women having to work 5 yrs more, now 6 and soon to be 7 , somebody's getting it if it's not going to these people unless someone can do the sums on working age population v retirees.
Figure out, how did it start,the contributions would have existed from the inception of it so where did they find money from and what has diminished it so , I'm going to have a guess, remember serps, earnings related?
Figure out, how did it start,the contributions would have existed from the inception of it so where did they find money from and what has diminished it so , I'm going to have a guess, remember serps, earnings related?
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
4.1 workers to a pensioner in 1960, 3.6 now.
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
These stupid bastards should understand better the decisions a government has to make
0.5 reduction then in 80 yrs 12.5 % or an increase in pensioners ,guess it's the latter with all the health benefits around, just paid the blood scandal victims,soon liable for post office.
A bad time to get elected really!
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
People living longer and a lower birth rate too. Projected to be 2.5 by 2070 I think.
So much crap was stored up. We called it on this very thread before the election. The first budget was always going to be tough. Combined with the media throwing a fit they’ve not had a chance. Still let’s elect Reform who want to cut all spending by 5%, I’m sure that will lead to bumper pay outs for all
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
Good to see Starmer has the political acumen of a Twix in appointing a nonce facilitator to his ambassador squad.
Labour veteran Peter Mandelson says US ambassador job an 'honour'
Labour veteran Peter Mandelson says US ambassador job an 'honour'
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
He's good mates with Trump from the Epstein days at least