UK Politics

[kaosmark2]

4 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

If I were to put my cynical hat on I would say that pensions and how they are protected are simply because of the weight of voters it attracts rather than caring or wanting to do good for people - but of course no government or wanna be government would ever have policy based on holding onto part of the electorate now would they!!

If the youth started to vote regularly I wonder how many policies would appear aimed at looking after them more.


Politics, cynical, all about getting re-elected rather than the common good!?!?

Never

It's also circular. The youth don't vote because even when they do it's just politicians shitting on them. If no party is actually speaking for you, and respecting you, why would you go out of your way to endorse them?

[kaosmark2]

2 hours ago, steviewevie said:

Who's telling the truth, Kemi Badenoch or Henry Staunton?

BET NOW!

You can tell when a Tory Minister lies: Their lips move.

[kaosmark2]

52 minutes ago, SalviaPlath said:

I'm concerned about Wes Streeting. Over the last few days he's been saying sensible things (citizens assemblies are good and Israel has gone too far in killing civilians) and appearing vaguely likeable. This is very out of character.

Don't worry, I'm sure he'll slag off hope again soon enough.

[fraybentos1]

8 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's also circular. The youth don't vote because even when they do it's just politicians shitting on them. If no party is actually speaking for you, and respecting you, why would you go out of your way to endorse them?

Yeah I agree it is circular. The offering to young people is fairly pitiful. Look at the housing crisis for example, probs what most young people would say is the biggest issue they face and neither party seems serious about tackling it. Labour occasionally talk a good game but you know for a fact they'll drop it like a hot potato to secure the votes of homeowners who just want their property value to keep going up and up.

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, fraybentos1 said:

Yeah I agree it is circular. The offering to young people is fairly pitiful. Look at the housing crisis for example, probs what most young people would say is the biggest issue they face and neither party seems serious about tackling it. Labour occasionally talk a good game but you know for a fact they'll drop it like a hot potato to secure the votes of homeowners who just want their property value to keep going up and up.

Starmer visited Bristol recently, and had answers prepared to talk about stabbings (tragic but usually rare), drug use (erm), but was evasive and ran away the moment housing and bus services came up.

The biggest issues here are that people can't afford to live anywhere near the centre, and people can't get into the centre from further out because the buses don't turn up. Every other issue put together isn't as important as either of those two.

[steviewevie]

The state pension was considered too low and too many pensioners were effectively living in poverty which is why triple lock thing was introduced, right? Not sure it was just about votes. Now it is being questioned because last few years it has gone up more than wages...and maybe soon they will scrap it and link it to average earnings because it isn't sustainable...or they will just keep increasing the pension age (not exactly a vote winner either).

[kaosmark2]

Just now, steviewevie said:

The state pension was considered too low and too many pensioners were effectively living in poverty which is why triple lock thing was introduced, right? Not sure it was just about votes. Now it is being questioned because last few years it has gone up more than wages...and maybe soon they will scrap it and link it to average earnings because it isn't sustainable...or they will just keep increasing the pension age (not exactly a vote winner either).

It was introduced back in 2011 by Gideon Osborne, alongside scrapping a lot of pensioner benefits, including a bunch of means tested ones.

You can argue that there is sense of just having a good state pension scheme instead of means-tested benefits that are more costly to implement, but it was absolutely a vote-chasing giveaway.

[steviewevie]

Labour amendment...Immediate humanitarian ceasefire....because they can't put the words immediate and ceasefire directly together. 

 

[fraybentos1]

11 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

The state pension was considered too low and too many pensioners were effectively living in poverty which is why triple lock thing was introduced, right? Not sure it was just about votes. Now it is being questioned because last few years it has gone up more than wages...and maybe soon they will scrap it and link it to average earnings because it isn't sustainable...or they will just keep increasing the pension age (not exactly a vote winner either).

Pensioner poverty was high in like the 80s and dropped substantially before the triple lock was introduced in 2010

Pensioners in poverty - Full Fact

[lazyred]

7 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

It was introduced back in 2011 by Gideon Osborne, alongside scrapping a lot of pensioner benefits, including a bunch of means tested ones.

You can argue that there is sense of just having a good state pension scheme instead of means-tested benefits that are more costly to implement, but it was absolutely a vote-chasing giveaway.

State pension is taxable so most people with ssp or a private pension are paying some back in tax. This is a better option than a low pension plus benefits or means trsting the state pension

[steviewevie]

'Pensioners deserve better than the triple lock' | Institute for Fiscal Studies (ifs.org.uk)

[kaosmark2]

6 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

'Pensioners deserve better than the triple lock' | Institute for Fiscal Studies (ifs.org.uk)

I click the link and see:

Carl Emmerson writes about the triple lock in The Telegraph

followed by

Originally published in The Telegraph  on 13 December 2023

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I click the link and see:

Carl Emmerson writes about the triple lock in The Telegraph

followed by

Originally published in The Telegraph  on 13 December 2023

Yeah he is IFS guy and this was first published in Telegraph.

[lazyred]

2 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

I click the link and see:

Carl Emmerson writes about the triple lock in The Telegraph

followed by

Originally published in The Telegraph  on 13 December 2023

But did you read the article which proposes setting the pension as a  proportion of earnings? It's actually a good idea. 

[lazyred]

26 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Labour amendment...Immediate humanitarian ceasefire....because they can't put the words immediate and ceasefire directly together. 

 

It looks like a shift in policy to an unconditional ceasefire because of the dire situation

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, lazyred said:

It looks like a shift in policy to an unconditional ceasefire because of the dire situation

Not sure about unconditional...needs Hamas to be on board with it, hostages released etd etc. Looks like same as Australia and others. I wonder what SNP will say...not good enough I expect, then have to see what Labour MPs do. But yes definitely a shift from Labour...but then it's all shifting, even US calling for a temporary ceasefire now.

[kaosmark2]

10 minutes ago, lazyred said:

But did you read the article which proposes setting the pension as a  proportion of earnings? It's actually a good idea. 

Yeah. The headline is sensationalist designed to appeal to Torygraph readers. The article basically talks about linking to earnings, which is what I'm saying is good as well.

[lost]

The OBR have a funky web-page to play with, showing debt to GDP based on current NHS and pensions spending as the population ages. Currently on track to hit 283% of GDP by 2068. I think its pretty obvious that won't be allowed to happen so its a question of what which government does to pensions in the mean time and how long it waits to act:

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/choose-long-term-projections/

Also worth noting the page was created in 2017 and doesn't include covid spending so we are already at the point they predicted we wouldn't hit till 2040ish.

Edited February 20, 2024 by lost

[steviewevie]

35 minutes ago, lost said:

The OBR have a funky web-page to play with, showing debt to GDP based on current NHS and pensions spending as the population ages. Currently on track to hit 283% of GDP by 2068. I think its pretty obvious that won't be allowed to happen so its a question of what which government does to pensions in the mean time and how long it waits to act:

https://obr.uk/forecasts-in-depth/brief-guides-and-explainers/choose-long-term-projections/

Also worth noting the page was created in 2017 and doesn't include covid spending so we are already at the point they predicted we wouldn't hit till 2040ish.

we need a cull.

[lazyred]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

Not sure about unconditional...needs Hamas to be on board with it, hostages released etd etc. Looks like same as Australia and others. I wonder what SNP will say...not good enough I expect, then have to see what Labour MPs do. But yes definitely a shift from Labour...but then it's all shifting, even US calling for a temporary ceasefire now.

I don't think the ceasefire bit is conditional on a peace plan or hostages. Anyway none of it matters outside of uk. The SNP are playing games and labour have a form of words to unite their party and escape their trap. 

[steviewevie]

5 minutes ago, lazyred said:

I don't think the ceasefire bit is conditional on a peace plan or hostages. Anyway none of it matters outside of uk. The SNP are playing games and labour have a form of words to unite their party and escape their trap. 

 

 

it actually isn't that different to what they were saying before, just different words...and in the end isn't that different to what SNP are saying...

 

[steviewevie]

I guess SNP one is more abrupt, less of all the other stuff, just stop.

[steviewevie]

and Labour is whipping its MPs to abstain if it isn't amended. 🍿

[LJS]

spot the difference...

[steviewevie]