FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Are you Labour?
Are you Labour?
Jump to: Newest in thread
I'm not. I've only ever voted labour on locals.
However I'm politically promiscuous. | |||
"On the interest of political balance in fab
I'm not. I've only ever voted labour on locals.
However I'm politically promiscuous. "I’m traditionally a Labour voter, but that’s more a product of FPTP than anything. They’re the closest viable option to what I want to society to look like. | |||
| |||
| |||
"[Removed by poster at 13/02/24 11:04:54]" NotMe has been cancelled!  | |||
| |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do." Where did he send the party? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner. | |||
"On the interest of political balance in fab
I'm not. I've only ever voted labour on locals.
However I'm politically promiscuous. "Voted Labour once. To keep the Tory out. It worked. Can't see myself voting for the current incarnation. They're Tory-lite to me. But then I lived in other EU countries for a long time, so wasn't voting in the UK. | |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do. Where did he send the party? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner." You can't be oblivious to the damage, and I'm not going to start on the subject, because a portion of it as you know will change the direction of the thread towards the many threads already inflamed. | |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do. Where did he send the party? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner. You can't be oblivious to the damage, and I'm not going to start on the subject, because a portion of it as you know will change the direction of the thread towards the many threads already inflamed. " I’m aware of the damage done to the country by granting Johnson the election he craved, and obviously the damage to Labour as a party. | |||
| |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do. Where did he send the party? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner." 100% agree that the Labour 2019 manifesto was brilliant & fully funded. I am not a massive Corbyn fan however he was the only one to put pen to paper saying he would house all ex service personal in that manifesto. Also any company applying for a government contract would have to pay tax in the UK (no tax payers money going off shore) no dodgy fast lane vip profiting from COVID. The one main thing that I did like about JC was that he could not be bought & the establishment hated that fact. It's also got to be said he build the LP was it the largest European party & took it from loosing money to financial stability. As for quotes about Militant unions that's the same people that fought for things we take for granted today, eg contracts of employment for a starter, maternity rights & pay, holidays, weekends off etc etc etc Without them you would be going to the workhouse everyday in the hope of being picked to work, and to come out uninjured from the dangerous working conditions | |||
| |||
"I see myself as a centrist because I believe in pragmatism. Generally I am probably left if centre on more things than I am right of centre but there are some. When I was younger (and had less) I was a Labour voter. As I get older and accumulate more stuff I struggle between voting out of self interest or the interests of society. Right now nobody really represents me!" Bang on ?? | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"A freind told me that labour are losing alot of support in the polls,i cant find any info on it and was wondering if anyone knows anything about this" I just Googled it and Politico Poll of Polls says Labour 45% Conservative 24%. Was Labour previously higher than 45%? | |||
"A freind told me that labour are losing alot of support in the polls,i cant find any info on it and was wondering if anyone knows anything about this I just Googled it and Politico Poll of Polls says Labour 45% Conservative 24%. Was Labour previously higher than 45%?" I honestly dont know,my mate said they had went down by 7 points but as i say i dont know | |||
| |||
| |||
" But I don't support the diet Tories " What are diet Tories? | |||
"A freind told me that labour are losing alot of support in the polls,i cant find any info on it and was wondering if anyone knows anything about this" A few weeks ago I stated that labour are in a mess because their support for the mass killing going on in Gaza. Moves have been made to put candidates against labour candidates in key seats, Starrmer and Wes Streeting especially Wes are in danger of losing their seats at the next election. None of this is in the MSM that I have seen. | |||
| |||
"I wouldn't vote for any of them, they are all in line with conglomerates they all follow the same narrative that the population sucks up. We need to remind them who is really in power here, we need to take what is valuable to them, we need to make them change their ways. And we won't do that as long as we are divided, attack one of the things they care about which is the illusion of having a say by voting, I have wrote to my councillor and it looks like he will be an independent at the election, so he is listening to his voters who took action against him over the Israeli thing and he resigned from labour. That action caused me to think that we can make a change if we act together." What change? There are people who’s views I would not dream of aligning with - we see that even on here | |||
"I wouldn't vote for any of them, they are all in line with conglomerates they all follow the same narrative that the population sucks up. We need to remind them who is really in power here, we need to take what is valuable to them, we need to make them change their ways. And we won't do that as long as we are divided, attack one of the things they care about which is the illusion of having a say by voting, I have wrote to my councillor and it looks like he will be an independent at the election, so he is listening to his voters who took action against him over the Israeli thing and he resigned from labour. That action caused me to think that we can make a change if we act together. What change? There are people who’s views I would not dream of aligning with - we see that even on here " Do you think that could be the issue for the everyday voter, taking a side instead of thinking what is good for us as a whole. | |||
"It was a Telegraph poll. But it still had Labour 44% Conservative 25%." Thanks | |||
"I wouldn't vote for any of them, they are all in line with conglomerates they all follow the same narrative that the population sucks up. We need to remind them who is really in power here, we need to take what is valuable to them, we need to make them change their ways. And we won't do that as long as we are divided, attack one of the things they care about which is the illusion of having a say by voting, I have wrote to my councillor and it looks like he will be an independent at the election, so he is listening to his voters who took action against him over the Israeli thing and he resigned from labour. That action caused me to think that we can make a change if we act together. What change? There are people who’s views I would not dream of aligning with - we see that even on here Do you think that could be the issue for the everyday voter, taking a side instead of thinking what is good for us as a whole." People will always take sides - an easy example is immigration. Some folk will never align with my way of thinking, and I never theirs. ‘What’s good for us as a whole’ isn’t going to wash with some sections of society. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I wouldn't vote for any of them, they are all in line with conglomerates they all follow the same narrative that the population sucks up. We need to remind them who is really in power here, we need to take what is valuable to them, we need to make them change their ways. And we won't do that as long as we are divided, attack one of the things they care about which is the illusion of having a say by voting, I have wrote to my councillor and it looks like he will be an independent at the election, so he is listening to his voters who took action against him over the Israeli thing and he resigned from labour. That action caused me to think that we can make a change if we act together. What change? There are people who’s views I would not dream of aligning with - we see that even on here Do you think that could be the issue for the everyday voter, taking a side instead of thinking what is good for us as a whole." Different people have a different definition of "good". Also when you look at such a big scale, there is always some compromise being made with every policy. There will be some winners and some losers. So it's not as simple as doing what is "good for all of us". So there will always be moral conflicts. Democracy is just a compromise where we go with the majority opinion albeit in a fussy way because a single party never represents all the wishes of any individual. IMO it's good this way. I would rather have people with their own diverse ideas instead of becoming uniformly thinking robots. | |||
| |||
"If people see how the Labour Mayor runs London and see how the Labour First Minister runs Wales then I think people might have to have second thought about voting Labour on a national level" Wait til we tell you about the last mayor of London. | |||
"On the interest of political balance in fab
I'm not. I've only ever voted labour on locals.
However I'm politically promiscuous.
I’m traditionally a Labour voter, but that’s more a product of FPTP than anything. They’re the closest viable option to what I want to society to look like."This. Otherwise it'd be liberal democrats. | |||
| |||
| |||
"What change? There are people who’s views I would not dream of aligning with - we see that even on here " Agreed. This is where a party is needed that will moderate your views and those who disagree with you, and present a compromise to both sides. You both get a little of what you want, and a little of what you don't. | |||
| |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is"  | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is "Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad. If this stuff is so important you'd vote on the basis of it, I'd encourage you to do so on the back of policies relating to it. Not over if you agree with their definition. Because the Tories may put a tomato on your fruit salad (and not a bananna) even if only they Tories class it as a fruit. | |||
| |||
"I have my doubts about Labour and the calibre of some of their MPs, but that said, do the Tories deserve another chance after 13 years of piss-poor governance? If an organisation or persons are not doing their job they deserve the boot." The only boot they get is the one to the other side of the bench.   | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
If this stuff is so important you'd vote on the basis of it, I'd encourage you to do so on the back of policies relating to it. Not over if you agree with their definition.
Because the Tories may put a tomato on your fruit salad (and not a bananna) even if only they Tories class it as a fruit. "Please do not assume that because I put a thumbs up to a post against voting for Labour means I'm going to vote Conservative. I don't trust either of them. | |||
"I have my doubts about Labour and the calibre of some of their MPs, but that said, do the Tories deserve another chance after 13 years of piss-poor governance? If an organisation or persons are not doing their job they deserve the boot. The only boot they get is the one to the other side of the bench. "Quite a few Tory MPs have the foresight to see they are going to crash and burn so are bailing out and not standing for re-election. | |||
| |||
"62 so far" A mass exodus! | |||
| |||
"I used to be labour, and I do support the need for a good publicly funded infrastructure. However, I do not like the fringe politics of Labour, the micro-management of everyday life that happens in local government - and so I find it hard to support Labour on a local level (especially not Sadiq Khan). My vote doesn't mean much in Tower Hamlets, as its been a strong Labour seat for decades. " That gives you the freedom to vote for the party with the best policies, rather than voting to keep someone you dislike the most out. Those blind policy quizzes come out at election time. They're always interesting. | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is" I don't think other people are as confused about "woke" as you. Repeating it endlessly isn't going sway anyone. | |||
"On the interest of political balance in fab
I'm not. I've only ever voted labour on locals.
However I'm politically promiscuous. "Labour are for the people who want a fierce anti illegal migration policy, the conservatives are the opposite which has been shown. | |||
"I see myself as a centrist because I believe in pragmatism. Generally I am probably left if centre on more things than I am right of centre but there are some. When I was younger (and had less) I was a Labour voter. As I get older and accumulate more stuff I struggle between voting out of self interest or the interests of society. Right now nobody really represents me!" I'm simpler so will probably go lib as the rest are not worth a vote | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is I don't think other people are as confused about "woke" as you. Repeating it endlessly isn't going sway anyone. " Well just one of many points why Labour shouldnt be in power, the woke agenda is one of the silly reason why I dont take Labour seriously | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is I don't think other people are as confused about "woke" as you. Repeating it endlessly isn't going sway anyone. Well just one of many points why Labour shouldnt be in power, the woke agenda is one of the silly reason why I dont take Labour seriously" What does ‘woke’ mean? | |||
| |||
"Woke or being polictically correct doesn't mean being aware of social injustices like you lot like to believe. It actually means wanting to control what others say and think and cancels anyone that doesnt agree with the narrative" It's not what "you lot believe" it's what's in the dictionary. Never seen or heard of anyone trying to control what anyone thinks. Although your chosen party Reform are big on cancel culture, I don't think anyone can accuse them of being woke under any definition. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"The Tories and Labour are both cheeks of the same gaping arse. I can’t take Reform seriously. So where do you vote when you believe that you should keep the majority of the money you earn and see low taxation, a strong military with the ability to defend your borders, a judiciary that follows the law instead of being activist in it, a police force that actually polices without fear or favour, wholesale reform of the NHS so we are a country with a health system not a health system akin to a religion with a country attached? Starmer is an absolute muppet and he would break this country (not that anyone would have to try hard) as he’s in hoc to the far left unions. Sunak’s not in it for the long hall he only wants to do a Nick Clegg and FO to California with his billionare liberal mates. I can’t take Tice seriously and Davey is a joke. After a career in the army and the NHS, I can honestly say that I’ve lost all sense of patriotism and as soon as I retire I want to take whatever wealth I have accumulated, move abroad, and leave this shit hole to its fate. " I think you should not hold back and say what you really feel, it will be cathartic | |||
| |||
| |||
" I don't understand people who declare themselves out of it because they can't find a party who precisely reflects all of their ideals. That's not how progress works. Hell, I bet you're all married to someone you don't agree with on everything." Because neither Labour or Conservative believe in low taxation, controlled borders, a properly funded military, wholesale reform of the NHS and it’s funding model, a reduction in the welfare bill, electoral reform, and de-politicising policing and the justice system. If either of them believed in most of those things I’d find reason to vote for them. But they don’t they’ve been ideologically captured by a left-of-centre blob. Say what you like about Thatcher/Foot but at least both of them were conviction politicians that belived in the principles they stood for. The current bunch are nothing but self-serving weatherveins. | |||
"I actually joined Labour just before Corbyn got in, in the hope that Corbyn would get in. This was before we had the opportunity to find out that he was a peevish little man, too narcissistic to play the game even just enough to make it work. The reason I despise Corbyn is he wasted an opportunity to properly disseminate his ideas, which I broadly agree with. I'm no longer a Labour member but I will vote Labour, even though I don't much like Starmer or any of his shadow cabinet, because they are to the Tories as a stale sandwich is to dog shit, and politics is ultimately a game of increments that should be played for the long term. I don't understand people who declare themselves out of it because they can't find a party who precisely reflects all of their ideals. That's not how progress works. Hell, I bet you're all married to someone you don't agree with on everything." I agree with everything my wife does, or so she tells me | |||
| |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means" That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. | |||
| |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means" Why? | |||
"If Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister it will be dangerous economically mostly" Why? | |||
"If Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister it will be dangerous economically mostly Why?" I’m keen to hear an answer to this too. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.." We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? | |||
"If Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister it will be dangerous economically mostly" Thinking the opposite, intelligent man who knows the mess country is in. Don’t see any major policy changes. Reeves has said economy is priority which is a breath of fresh air over tories defending their wank brexit and it’s five new trade deals. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost?" Firstly it's irrelevant politically as to whom the thoughts are verbalised about, and secondly you're talking about a totally different aspect than the one I replied to.. 'at any cost or means' is a lot further down the road from I will vote for anyone except x.. When we see MPs getting death threats and worse the words I've highlighted are nothing to do with my choice is not to vote for whom but a mindset (which the poster has ignored) that's very unhealthy.. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? Firstly it's irrelevant politically as to whom the thoughts are verbalised about, and secondly you're talking about a totally different aspect than the one I replied to.. 'at any cost or means' is a lot further down the road from I will vote for anyone except x.. When we see MPs getting death threats and worse the words I've highlighted are nothing to do with my choice is not to vote for whom but a mindset (which the poster has ignored) that's very unhealthy.." It’s definitely reflective of how normalised violent language has become in political discourse. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means Why?" Shall we start with their £28Bn economic black hole on their carbon programme? The fact is the left is economically illiterate and driven by ideological envy. Of course they will eartn more in politics than the “little people” who they believe must always do as they are told, but ultimately they believe that anyone earning above the median is “rich” and must therefore be drained of all of their financial resources. Labour will continue to horrendously tax the middle classes to the point that expenditure will collapse as dissposable income dwindles. Typical Labour policy is to tax middle-income earners (it’s always us, we don’t earn enough to off-shore it) until we have no disposable income left. The employment market is flooded with cheap (usually immigrant) labour that generates little net taxation income (and is usuallu a net cost). Immigration does not grow the economy, in fact if you look at GDP per capita we are one of the poorest rich countries in the world because we import people who work for less than the indigenous population (while at the same time paying 2.7m people to sit idle at home). Labour will continue this lie. Labour will continue to piss money up the wall on carbon net zero while China and India continue to economically dominate while producing a signifcant majority of the world’s CO2 output. Labour will continue to push money into the NHS that the NHS is incabable of spending soundly as health outcomes worsten, jst as the Labour administration in Wales has done. Labour will borrow and borrow and spend poorly on infrastructure and “public services” that grow a dependency culture. It will do so cynically (the Brown tax regime was one of the most cynical in the world - take money off low and middle earners, then create a massive system where they have to apply to get their own money back in the form of “tax credits” and create the impression they are geting handouts from the State to create a dependency). As a result you pensions will suffer (assuming there isn’t another Brown-esque raid). Your house prices will fall. You will be taxed as you earn, then taxed as you spend what you have earned, you will be taxed more as you save what little you have left, and you will be taxed as you hand it on to your children. And still, public services will fail as they are bloated and controlled by the Unions, more and more will land on our shores and we will be unable to cost-effectively house and feed them. If you raise your concerns you will be told you are a “racist”, ‘far-right”. Life under Labour will be a dystopian hell-hole. Granted the current shower are no better, but Starnmer will be 10 times worse. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? Firstly it's irrelevant politically as to whom the thoughts are verbalised about, and secondly you're talking about a totally different aspect than the one I replied to.. 'at any cost or means' is a lot further down the road from I will vote for anyone except x.. When we see MPs getting death threats and worse the words I've highlighted are nothing to do with my choice is not to vote for whom but a mindset (which the poster has ignored) that's very unhealthy.." Interesting, you’ve read that as a threat to Starmer’s safety / life, I didn’t to be honest due to the posters continuous anti Labour postings. Is it me being oblivious to the intent or you being sensitive to the intent of the wording? Im not sure we will find out though | |||
| |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means Why? Shall we start with their £28Bn economic black hole on their carbon programme? The fact is the left is economically illiterate and driven by ideological envy. Of course they will eartn more in politics than the “little people” who they believe must always do as they are told, but ultimately they believe that anyone earning above the median is “rich” and must therefore be drained of all of their financial resources. Labour will continue to horrendously tax the middle classes to the point that expenditure will collapse as dissposable income dwindles. Typical Labour policy is to tax middle-income earners (it’s always us, we don’t earn enough to off-shore it) until we have no disposable income left. The employment market is flooded with cheap (usually immigrant) labour that generates little net taxation income (and is usuallu a net cost). Immigration does not grow the economy, in fact if you look at GDP per capita we are one of the poorest rich countries in the world because we import people who work for less than the indigenous population (while at the same time paying 2.7m people to sit idle at home). Labour will continue this lie. Labour will continue to piss money up the wall on carbon net zero while China and India continue to economically dominate while producing a signifcant majority of the world’s CO2 output. Labour will continue to push money into the NHS that the NHS is incabable of spending soundly as health outcomes worsten, jst as the Labour administration in Wales has done. Labour will borrow and borrow and spend poorly on infrastructure and “public services” that grow a dependency culture. It will do so cynically (the Brown tax regime was one of the most cynical in the world - take money off low and middle earners, then create a massive system where they have to apply to get their own money back in the form of “tax credits” and create the impression they are geting handouts from the State to create a dependency). As a result you pensions will suffer (assuming there isn’t another Brown-esque raid). Your house prices will fall. You will be taxed as you earn, then taxed as you spend what you have earned, you will be taxed more as you save what little you have left, and you will be taxed as you hand it on to your children. And still, public services will fail as they are bloated and controlled by the Unions, more and more will land on our shores and we will be unable to cost-effectively house and feed them. If you raise your concerns you will be told you are a “racist”, ‘far-right”. Life under Labour will be a dystopian hell-hole. Granted the current shower are no better, but Starnmer will be 10 times worse. " Just the standard old out of date trope "Labour will borrow and borrow". I don't know if you're for real, or if you're taking the piss out of a certain section of the electorate. But sadly there are lots of people who aren't paying attention, and who think this kind of rubbish, and vote for the Tories because of it. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means Why? Shall we start with their £28Bn economic black hole on their carbon programme? The fact is the left is economically illiterate and driven by ideological envy. Of course they will eartn more in politics than the “little people” who they believe must always do as they are told, but ultimately they believe that anyone earning above the median is “rich” and must therefore be drained of all of their financial resources. Labour will continue to horrendously tax the middle classes to the point that expenditure will collapse as dissposable income dwindles. Typical Labour policy is to tax middle-income earners (it’s always us, we don’t earn enough to off-shore it) until we have no disposable income left. The employment market is flooded with cheap (usually immigrant) labour that generates little net taxation income (and is usuallu a net cost). Immigration does not grow the economy, in fact if you look at GDP per capita we are one of the poorest rich countries in the world because we import people who work for less than the indigenous population (while at the same time paying 2.7m people to sit idle at home). Labour will continue this lie. Labour will continue to piss money up the wall on carbon net zero while China and India continue to economically dominate while producing a signifcant majority of the world’s CO2 output. Labour will continue to push money into the NHS that the NHS is incabable of spending soundly as health outcomes worsten, jst as the Labour administration in Wales has done. Labour will borrow and borrow and spend poorly on infrastructure and “public services” that grow a dependency culture. It will do so cynically (the Brown tax regime was one of the most cynical in the world - take money off low and middle earners, then create a massive system where they have to apply to get their own money back in the form of “tax credits” and create the impression they are geting handouts from the State to create a dependency). As a result you pensions will suffer (assuming there isn’t another Brown-esque raid). Your house prices will fall. You will be taxed as you earn, then taxed as you spend what you have earned, you will be taxed more as you save what little you have left, and you will be taxed as you hand it on to your children. And still, public services will fail as they are bloated and controlled by the Unions, more and more will land on our shores and we will be unable to cost-effectively house and feed them. If you raise your concerns you will be told you are a “racist”, ‘far-right”. Life under Labour will be a dystopian hell-hole. Granted the current shower are no better, but Starnmer will be 10 times worse. Just the standard old out of date trope "Labour will borrow and borrow". I don't know if you're for real, or if you're taking the piss out of a certain section of the electorate. But sadly there are lots of people who aren't paying attention, and who think this kind of rubbish, and vote for the Tories because of it." Leapords don’t change their spots. If you have read my other posts, the Tories are now just another cheek of the same arse. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? Firstly it's irrelevant politically as to whom the thoughts are verbalised about, and secondly you're talking about a totally different aspect than the one I replied to.. 'at any cost or means' is a lot further down the road from I will vote for anyone except x.. When we see MPs getting death threats and worse the words I've highlighted are nothing to do with my choice is not to vote for whom but a mindset (which the poster has ignored) that's very unhealthy.. Interesting, you’ve read that as a threat to Starmer’s safety / life, I didn’t to be honest due to the posters continuous anti Labour postings. Is it me being oblivious to the intent or you being sensitive to the intent of the wording? Im not sure we will find out though " I've read it how it's written which doesn't read well and of ocourse the person is more than able to clarify their meaning, but I agree I suspect they won't.. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. " We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable." we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means Why? Shall we start with their £28Bn economic black hole on their carbon programme? The fact is the left is economically illiterate and driven by ideological envy. Of course they will eartn more in politics than the “little people” who they believe must always do as they are told, but ultimately they believe that anyone earning above the median is “rich” and must therefore be drained of all of their financial resources. Labour will continue to horrendously tax the middle classes to the point that expenditure will collapse as dissposable income dwindles. Typical Labour policy is to tax middle-income earners (it’s always us, we don’t earn enough to off-shore it) until we have no disposable income left. The employment market is flooded with cheap (usually immigrant) labour that generates little net taxation income (and is usuallu a net cost). Immigration does not grow the economy, in fact if you look at GDP per capita we are one of the poorest rich countries in the world because we import people who work for less than the indigenous population (while at the same time paying 2.7m people to sit idle at home). Labour will continue this lie. Labour will continue to piss money up the wall on carbon net zero while China and India continue to economically dominate while producing a signifcant majority of the world’s CO2 output. Labour will continue to push money into the NHS that the NHS is incabable of spending soundly as health outcomes worsten, jst as the Labour administration in Wales has done. Labour will borrow and borrow and spend poorly on infrastructure and “public services” that grow a dependency culture. It will do so cynically (the Brown tax regime was one of the most cynical in the world - take money off low and middle earners, then create a massive system where they have to apply to get their own money back in the form of “tax credits” and create the impression they are geting handouts from the State to create a dependency). As a result you pensions will suffer (assuming there isn’t another Brown-esque raid). Your house prices will fall. You will be taxed as you earn, then taxed as you spend what you have earned, you will be taxed more as you save what little you have left, and you will be taxed as you hand it on to your children. And still, public services will fail as they are bloated and controlled by the Unions, more and more will land on our shores and we will be unable to cost-effectively house and feed them. If you raise your concerns you will be told you are a “racist”, ‘far-right”. Life under Labour will be a dystopian hell-hole. Granted the current shower are no better, but Starnmer will be 10 times worse. Just the standard old out of date trope "Labour will borrow and borrow". I don't know if you're for real, or if you're taking the piss out of a certain section of the electorate. But sadly there are lots of people who aren't paying attention, and who think this kind of rubbish, and vote for the Tories because of it. Leapords don’t change their spots. If you have read my other posts, the Tories are now just another cheek of the same arse. " I don't know your other posts. But I tend to agree that current Labour aren't offering any meaningful change. Will continue to serve the interests of the fossil fuels industry and other big corporations, will continue to blame various minorities and foreigners for everything. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means Why? Shall we start with their £28Bn economic black hole on their carbon programme? The fact is the left is economically illiterate and driven by ideological envy. Of course they will eartn more in politics than the “little people” who they believe must always do as they are told, but ultimately they believe that anyone earning above the median is “rich” and must therefore be drained of all of their financial resources. Labour will continue to horrendously tax the middle classes to the point that expenditure will collapse as dissposable income dwindles. Typical Labour policy is to tax middle-income earners (it’s always us, we don’t earn enough to off-shore it) until we have no disposable income left. The employment market is flooded with cheap (usually immigrant) labour that generates little net taxation income (and is usuallu a net cost). Immigration does not grow the economy, in fact if you look at GDP per capita we are one of the poorest rich countries in the world because we import people who work for less than the indigenous population (while at the same time paying 2.7m people to sit idle at home). Labour will continue this lie. Labour will continue to piss money up the wall on carbon net zero while China and India continue to economically dominate while producing a signifcant majority of the world’s CO2 output. Labour will continue to push money into the NHS that the NHS is incabable of spending soundly as health outcomes worsten, jst as the Labour administration in Wales has done. Labour will borrow and borrow and spend poorly on infrastructure and “public services” that grow a dependency culture. It will do so cynically (the Brown tax regime was one of the most cynical in the world - take money off low and middle earners, then create a massive system where they have to apply to get their own money back in the form of “tax credits” and create the impression they are geting handouts from the State to create a dependency). As a result you pensions will suffer (assuming there isn’t another Brown-esque raid). Your house prices will fall. You will be taxed as you earn, then taxed as you spend what you have earned, you will be taxed more as you save what little you have left, and you will be taxed as you hand it on to your children. And still, public services will fail as they are bloated and controlled by the Unions, more and more will land on our shores and we will be unable to cost-effectively house and feed them. If you raise your concerns you will be told you are a “racist”, ‘far-right”. Life under Labour will be a dystopian hell-hole. Granted the current shower are no better, but Starnmer will be 10 times worse. " I expected that sort of reply from you but you are not Caribbean King and I wanted to know his reasons as he makes sweeping statements but never explains his thinking. Now he’ll like just go yeah that  | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. " Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from." how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? " Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners." This. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners." 1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. " 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers!" don't disagree on 2. But that's policy. On 1 see my point about training. I dont buy into the idea that someone is only good for manual jobs. Or we make it so employers have to contribute decent amounts to a pension I don't have all the answers. I'm just not convinced it has to be ever increasing immigration. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers!" The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers!don't disagree on 2. But that's policy. On 1 see my point about training. I dont buy into the idea that someone is only good for manual jobs. Or we make it so employers have to contribute decent amounts to a pension I don't have all the answers. I'm just not convinced it has to be ever increasing immigration. " Sticking with pension age. I believe for years life expectancy was going up. That fed into the argument for raising the state pension age. However, I believe it started to fall again? But just because people live longer, does it mean they are capable of still working? Or should be expected to? Not everyone living longer is doing so because they are healthier. In some cases, as I said, it is due to medical intervention so live longer but not healthier. How about incentivising people to take state pension later and keep working longer? But then, what impact does that have on young people trying to enter the workforce if jobs aren’t being freed up? | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. " I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. " When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants." I'm in the same camp. The way to encourage more indigenous kids isn't to just hand out more cash. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. " I’ll say it before anyone else does. There is no “pot” that people are paying into. It would be better if there was actually. If everyone had a pension pot that a certain % of income had to be paid into with a minimum threshold topped up for the poorer in society but allowing for the wealthier to have a bigger “state pension” that would be fairer. Instead the state pension is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme that relies on new entrants paying in to fund those at the top taking out. Problem is the pyramid is in danger of inverting. A couple of pandemics might help with that! | |||
" You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. " We really do have enough people to do fulfill the jobs available. People choose not to work (for whatever reason) and that means we can't fulfill, I agree immigration can fill the gap but we should be focusing on skilled immigration largely. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants. I'm in the same camp. The way to encourage more indigenous kids isn't to just hand out more cash. " Not thought this through but top of head thinking, I would prefer to see tax incentives rather than benefits. ie if you have a child your tax free allowance increases. That encourages and incentivises working. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. I’ll say it before anyone else does. There is no “pot” that people are paying into. It would be better if there was actually. If everyone had a pension pot that a certain % of income had to be paid into with a minimum threshold topped up for the poorer in society but allowing for the wealthier to have a bigger “state pension” that would be fairer. Instead the state pension is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme that relies on new entrants paying in to fund those at the top taking out. Problem is the pyramid is in danger of inverting. A couple of pandemics might help with that!" Sounds like a 'private pension' which frankly, I'm in favour of. If I pay in 11% of my PAYE (I'm not employed) then I should get 9-10% back in my pension. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants. I'm in the same camp. The way to encourage more indigenous kids isn't to just hand out more cash. Not thought this through but top of head thinking, I would prefer to see tax incentives rather than benefits. ie if you have a child your tax free allowance increases. That encourages and incentivises working." That I could go for. A tax break could completely replace child benefit. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. I’ll say it before anyone else does. There is no “pot” that people are paying into. It would be better if there was actually. If everyone had a pension pot that a certain % of income had to be paid into with a minimum threshold topped up for the poorer in society but allowing for the wealthier to have a bigger “state pension” that would be fairer. Instead the state pension is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme that relies on new entrants paying in to fund those at the top taking out. Problem is the pyramid is in danger of inverting. A couple of pandemics might help with that! Sounds like a 'private pension' which frankly, I'm in favour of. If I pay in 11% of my PAYE (I'm not employed) then I should get 9-10% back in my pension. " I believe in Holland the “national insurance” equivalent reflects what you pay in so if you lose your job, your job seeker allowance type benefit is something like 80% of your salary for a period of time. Not sure if that is same re pensions. I think the difference between what I said and a private pension is that it would be guaranteed by the government. No “your investment may go up or down and capital at risk” scenario. Instead the money paid in would fund govt bonds/gilts with guaranteed return. Basically citizens/taxpayers lending money to the Govt. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. I’ll say it before anyone else does. There is no “pot” that people are paying into. It would be better if there was actually. If everyone had a pension pot that a certain % of income had to be paid into with a minimum threshold topped up for the poorer in society but allowing for the wealthier to have a bigger “state pension” that would be fairer. Instead the state pension is a Ponzi / pyramid scheme that relies on new entrants paying in to fund those at the top taking out. Problem is the pyramid is in danger of inverting. A couple of pandemics might help with that! Sounds like a 'private pension' which frankly, I'm in favour of. If I pay in 11% of my PAYE (I'm not employed) then I should get 9-10% back in my pension. I believe in Holland the “national insurance” equivalent reflects what you pay in so if you lose your job, your job seeker allowance type benefit is something like 80% of your salary for a period of time. Not sure if that is same re pensions. I think the difference between what I said and a private pension is that it would be guaranteed by the government. No “your investment may go up or down and capital at risk” scenario. Instead the money paid in would fund govt bonds/gilts with guaranteed return. Basically citizens/taxpayers lending money to the Govt." I don't know the system in Holland, sounds good though. The reason I purchased private in '' was to suggest that what I'm paying in is mine, 'private', minus a small percentage for those on benefits. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. " id challenge that an average 65yo today is in the same state of disrepair as a a 65yo 30 years ago. Or that aging at a given rate is a given. I'd also disagree people have paid enough onto the pot their entire lives. For one there is no pot (we could change that) and secondly the fact they are living longer means a bigger pot is needed. But we do have a bigger pensions bill. The answer doesn't have to be more lowish earners in to pay tax. On the hope they all go home at some point. I'd also disagree some jobs have to be done. Workforces change all the time. Humans are massively ingenious and will find a way of needed. The question I'd be asking if I were in power is where does this stop ? Medical advanced will extend life times. Birth rates may reduce further. As the world mortality improves other cultures will follow suit (it's partly a function or affluence). Our population will become increasing top heavy, and so how much immigration will be needed in 20 years time of we carry on as we are without thinking wider? | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. id challenge that an average 65yo today is in the same state of disrepair as a a 65yo 30 years ago. Or that aging at a given rate is a given." You'd be wrong on the first point, well to a point. We live in good health for a year or so longer than we did 30 years ago but we live 4 years longer. So a 66 year old today is in the same state a 65 year old was 30 years ago. You are right also that ageing isn't uniform among everyone but on average we age at a particular rate, and that hasn't changed. " I'd also disagree people have paid enough onto the pot their entire lives. For one there is no pot (we could change that) and secondly the fact they are living longer means a bigger pot is needed. But we do have a bigger pensions bill. The answer doesn't have to be more lowish earners in to pay tax. On the hope they all go home at some point. I'd also disagree some jobs have to be done. Workforces change all the time. Humans are massively ingenious and will find a way of needed. " The pot I refer to is the general taxation pot, and I agree that more tax should be paid, specifically by the top 5% of earners, i.e. those who earn over £88k a year. Even more by the top 1%, those earning over £183k per year. Think of a job like a bricklayer, or a roofer, or a scaffolder, or a bin man, or delivery drivers etc. All physical jobs that we have no way of automating, these jobs still need done. " The question I'd be asking if I were in power is where does this stop ? Medical advanced will extend life times. Birth rates may reduce further. As the world mortality improves other cultures will follow suit (it's partly a function or affluence). Our population will become increasing top heavy, and so how much immigration will be needed in 20 years time of we carry on as we are without thinking wider?" More than is required now, that's the reality of the situation we face. Unless you can think of a way to increase the birth rate? | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. id challenge that an average 65yo today is in the same state of disrepair as a a 65yo 30 years ago. Or that aging at a given rate is a given. You'd be wrong on the first point, well to a point. We live in good health for a year or so longer than we did 30 years ago but we live 4 years longer. So a 66 year old today is in the same state a 65 year old was 30 years ago. You are right also that ageing isn't uniform among everyone but on average we age at a particular rate, and that hasn't changed. I'd also disagree people have paid enough onto the pot their entire lives. For one there is no pot (we could change that) and secondly the fact they are living longer means a bigger pot is needed. But we do have a bigger pensions bill. The answer doesn't have to be more lowish earners in to pay tax. On the hope they all go home at some point. I'd also disagree some jobs have to be done. Workforces change all the time. Humans are massively ingenious and will find a way of needed. The pot I refer to is the general taxation pot, and I agree that more tax should be paid, specifically by the top 5% of earners, i.e. those who earn over £88k a year. Even more by the top 1%, those earning over £183k per year. Think of a job like a bricklayer, or a roofer, or a scaffolder, or a bin man, or delivery drivers etc. All physical jobs that we have no way of automating, these jobs still need done. The question I'd be asking if I were in power is where does this stop ? Medical advanced will extend life times. Birth rates may reduce further. As the world mortality improves other cultures will follow suit (it's partly a function or affluence). Our population will become increasing top heavy, and so how much immigration will be needed in 20 years time of we carry on as we are without thinking wider? More than is required now, that's the reality of the situation we face. Unless you can think of a way to increase the birth rate?" The human race has been increasing year on year since homosapien evolved do you have data it hasn't. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. id challenge that an average 65yo today is in the same state of disrepair as a a 65yo 30 years ago. Or that aging at a given rate is a given. You'd be wrong on the first point, well to a point. We live in good health for a year or so longer than we did 30 years ago but we live 4 years longer. So a 66 year old today is in the same state a 65 year old was 30 years ago. You are right also that ageing isn't uniform among everyone but on average we age at a particular rate, and that hasn't changed. I'd also disagree people have paid enough onto the pot their entire lives. For one there is no pot (we could change that) and secondly the fact they are living longer means a bigger pot is needed. But we do have a bigger pensions bill. The answer doesn't have to be more lowish earners in to pay tax. On the hope they all go home at some point. I'd also disagree some jobs have to be done. Workforces change all the time. Humans are massively ingenious and will find a way of needed. The pot I refer to is the general taxation pot, and I agree that more tax should be paid, specifically by the top 5% of earners, i.e. those who earn over £88k a year. Even more by the top 1%, those earning over £183k per year. Think of a job like a bricklayer, or a roofer, or a scaffolder, or a bin man, or delivery drivers etc. All physical jobs that we have no way of automating, these jobs still need done. The question I'd be asking if I were in power is where does this stop ? Medical advanced will extend life times. Birth rates may reduce further. As the world mortality improves other cultures will follow suit (it's partly a function or affluence). Our population will become increasing top heavy, and so how much immigration will be needed in 20 years time of we carry on as we are without thinking wider? More than is required now, that's the reality of the situation we face. Unless you can think of a way to increase the birth rate?" there's a mix of opinions on aging out there. That another thread. We can agree higher tax could help support the pension bill which is a different way of creating the money than immigration. And while we may need some in physical professions we may need less for a given job. I'd guess it takes less menhours to build a house today than 1940s. Maybe we move to more prefab. Self drive cars and drones may reduce the need for delivery drivers. I don't have specifics but can imagine a future that looks different than today. Because today looks a helluva lot different to the past. Imagine thirty years ago if you told people you wouldn't need people on check outs. Or high street banks. Or paper boys. It would be interesting to see what the change in "manual" jibs has been since 1960 say and where new jobs have turned up. I'm not saying there would be no manual jobs. Just possibly a lot less. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. When is the last 7 years of someone's life? Fact is we are all living longer but we are not living longer in good health. The amount of time people spend in good health is largely unchanged even though life expectancy has been rising. People are kept alive by improvements in medicine, and frankly aren't in a condition to work any longer than they used to. Physical decline begins in your 30s and is not really an issue as your organs have more capacity than is required, however by the time you get to your 50s it becomes an issue. Everything starts to get a bit worse that little bit more quickly and we succumb to more and more ailments as our body's ability to repair itself is diminished. People's cognitive abilities tend to remain stable until their mid fifties but then a gradual decline begins, this decline accelerates as people reach their mid to late 70s. The old age pension is a 'benefit' that everyone should receive, people pay into the pot their entire lives, and to leave people struggling even more than they already do, when they are at their weakest physically and mentally, is not something a civilised country should contemplate. For whatever reason, people are having fewer children, maybe they feel they can't afford it because the government put a 2 child cap on certain benefits, or because we are long past the days where a household could survive on a single wage. These are a couple of the reasons we need immigrants to come to this country and work, pay into the exchequer and enrich the place both financially and culturally. You can say there has to be another way until you are blue in the face but immigration is an essential fact of economic life, the jobs need to be done and we don't have enough people to do them. id challenge that an average 65yo today is in the same state of disrepair as a a 65yo 30 years ago. Or that aging at a given rate is a given. You'd be wrong on the first point, well to a point. We live in good health for a year or so longer than we did 30 years ago but we live 4 years longer. So a 66 year old today is in the same state a 65 year old was 30 years ago. You are right also that ageing isn't uniform among everyone but on average we age at a particular rate, and that hasn't changed. I'd also disagree people have paid enough onto the pot their entire lives. For one there is no pot (we could change that) and secondly the fact they are living longer means a bigger pot is needed. But we do have a bigger pensions bill. The answer doesn't have to be more lowish earners in to pay tax. On the hope they all go home at some point. I'd also disagree some jobs have to be done. Workforces change all the time. Humans are massively ingenious and will find a way of needed. The pot I refer to is the general taxation pot, and I agree that more tax should be paid, specifically by the top 5% of earners, i.e. those who earn over £88k a year. Even more by the top 1%, those earning over £183k per year. Think of a job like a bricklayer, or a roofer, or a scaffolder, or a bin man, or delivery drivers etc. All physical jobs that we have no way of automating, these jobs still need done. The question I'd be asking if I were in power is where does this stop ? Medical advanced will extend life times. Birth rates may reduce further. As the world mortality improves other cultures will follow suit (it's partly a function or affluence). Our population will become increasing top heavy, and so how much immigration will be needed in 20 years time of we carry on as we are without thinking wider? More than is required now, that's the reality of the situation we face. Unless you can think of a way to increase the birth rate? The human race has been increasing year on year since homosapien evolved do you have data it hasn't." Which is great because it means there are more potential immigrants to make up for the falling birth rate in the UK! | |||
| |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them." Do you have an example of the type of "looney laws" that you expect Labour would make up? | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them." I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. " Agreed | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them." This threadromancy is making you look like a bot or sleeper agent! You always make a sweeping statement but never come back and back it up. You keep doing that people will just ignore you as you come across like an angry man shouting into the wind. How about actually explaining the points you make? And no not another rant about Sadiq Khan please! We know how much you love him | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. " Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting." The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.. | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.." Any rationale person would see what a success it was to secure an 80 seat majority…yadda yadda something about motobility…yadda yadda something about being a real winner…yadda yadda only pole that matters is the one on election day and people in the real world know that! | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting." ROFL Although I'd argue that the majority was wasted before then ! Boris didn't want to be PM to do stuff. (Cummings probably did tho). Imo, I think he thought as long as he delivered Brexit, he'd have a free pass. And possibly would had COVID not struck. Now, I think SKS actually wants to make some changes ... And with a super majority he doesn't need the whip as much. That's where the "danger" comes in. The intra collaboration fades away. | |||
| |||
"Hijacking my own thread "I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate." Which is summed up nicely by "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others." I'm not labour per se but on that side of the spectrum. I'm definitely not a net recipient. I'm probably top 1.5pc income. Many of my fellow lefties I speak to are also ball park top 5pc. However many of us have either come from needing state support or work in sectors that provide support to those that need help. This can give a "but by the grace of God" perspective. " Nicely put | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.." They were voted in on the back of getting brexit done, if labour had not been thought of as a second referendum party the Tory majority would have been a loss in my opinion. | |||
| |||
" "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others." " You know what's better life for yourself. You don't know what's better life for others. Even if we are going to focus only on material aspects of life, there is a question of how to go about giving better life to others. - It involves paying a lot of money. Who pays it and how much? - Once we have the money, how exactly are we going to spend it? | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.. They were voted in on the back of getting brexit done, if labour had not been thought of as a second referendum party the Tory majority would have been a loss in my opinion. " Corbyn flip flopped around like a wet pink salmon on the Brexit issue! | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is" That debate is so old news (and wrong). So, no-one is listening. | |||
"I hate the Labour Party. I hate what they do to people. Already they're gearing up for election mode in which they attempt to flog the idea that millions upon millions of Brits are living in desperate poverty, awaiting rescue by a party that cares for their plight. Times are hard for sure, but it's just not true. Poverty exists but it exists for numerous and complicated reasons, and it isn't solved merely by increasing welfare budgets - which can often exacerbate the problem by encouraging welfare dependency and learned helplessness. Socialism needs supplicants to survive. But Labour doesn't actually care about the poor. If it did they wouldn't be hell bent on inflicting Net Zero on the country, driving up our bills and heaping costs on businesses. If they cared they'd listen, and they’d listen to the demands for control of immigration. There's not much to choose between Labour and the Tories in those stakes, but without a doubt, Labour are the more loathsome tribe, especially when you take into account their fixation with American inspired identity politics, giving legislative preference to perverts and race grifters. Worse still, Labour represents all the very worst vested interests - the NGOcracy, activist lawyers and "philanthropic foundations". Not forgetting the unions who serve nobody but themselves - who back all of the worst woke causes. Labour is a coalition of cancerous influences. Particularly the legacy remain crowd who actively hate the working class and would gladly betray them so they don't have to queue at airports. All the same, I don't really care if the Tories lose to them. I won't be bullied into accepting Tory mediocrity. Moreover, if both parties have abandoned border control in favour of mass uncontrolled immigration, why should I even care what happens to the country? If it's to be handed to third worlders who rock up with their hand out, do I care the slightest if the lights don't stay on? Might as well take a scorched earth attitude. I'm afraid I don't see a path to preventing the disaster our political class is set to inflict upon us. All we can do is chart the decline for historical record and be prepared for a fight to remove them. They've made it clear that voting won't influence their decisions. It's up to us to start thinking about alternatives." You're voting Labour then, cool | |||
"The Tories and Labour are both cheeks of the same gaping arse. I can’t take Reform seriously. So where do you vote when you believe that you should keep the majority of the money you earn and see low taxation, a strong military with the ability to defend your borders, a judiciary that follows the law instead of being activist in it, a police force that actually polices without fear or favour, wholesale reform of the NHS so we are a country with a health system not a health system akin to a religion with a country attached? Starmer is an absolute muppet and he would break this country (not that anyone would have to try hard) as he’s in hoc to the far left unions. Sunak’s not in it for the long hall he only wants to do a Nick Clegg and FO to California with his billionare liberal mates. I can’t take Tice seriously and Davey is a joke. After a career in the army and the NHS, I can honestly say that I’ve lost all sense of patriotism and as soon as I retire I want to take whatever wealth I have accumulated, move abroad, and leave this shit hole to its fate. " And Lib dem the answer?  | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is That debate is so old news (and wrong). So, no-one is listening." It might be old news, wrong and falling on deaf years, but what if it's right? That's a tad worrying, no? | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost?" Easy. Tories have been in power and we've experienced their crap. Give someone else a chance (even if it is to spread crap, as that's definitely not a dead cert). | |||
"I will keep saying this until more people actually get this in their head. Yes we need a new Government because the Tories aint no good which we can all agree. But voting for Labour will be much worse. Seriously how can people contemplate voting for a party who's in this weird woke zone to a point where they can't even tell you what a woman is That debate is so old news (and wrong). So, no-one is listening. It might be old news, wrong and falling on deaf years, but what if it's right? That's a tad worrying, no?" The "much worse" part? No. | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? Easy. Tories have been in power and we've experienced their crap. Give someone else a chance (even if it is to spread crap, as that's definitely not a dead cert). "It's hard to argue against the Tories getting the boot - they deserve it. But can Labour do the job any better? SKS seems an erudite chap and a good egg, but what if he gets an ice pick from the lefties or Unite/Unison? | |||
"As much as I hate the Tories, Keir Starmer must not become Prime Minister at any cost or means That reads more than a little bit wrong.. Literally borderline dangerous thinking.. We see statements such as, I would vote for anyone other than Tory: or, I encourage you to vote for anyone other than Tory. What differences do you see in those statements to the comment about not Starmer as PM at any cost? Easy. Tories have been in power and we've experienced their crap. Give someone else a chance (even if it is to spread crap, as that's definitely not a dead cert).
It's hard to argue against the Tories getting the boot - they deserve it. But can Labour do the job any better? SKS seems an erudite chap and a good egg, but what if he gets an ice pick from the lefties or Unite/Unison?"We simply have to give him the chance due to FPTP. | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners." I did my duty  | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants." The rowntree foundation would have a lot to say about child benefit removal. | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.. They were voted in on the back of getting brexit done, if labour had not been thought of as a second referendum party the Tory majority would have been a loss in my opinion. " Possibly but as Birldn says Corbyn was all over the place on the issue.. | |||
"Hijacking my own thread "I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate." Which is summed up nicely by "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others." I'm not labour per se but on that side of the spectrum. I'm definitely not a net recipient. I'm probably top 1.5pc income. Many of my fellow lefties I speak to are also ball park top 5pc. However many of us have either come from needing state support or work in sectors that provide support to those that need help. This can give a "but by the grace of God" perspective. " Just a thought, buck said 100%. He is obviously on welfare. | |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do. Where did he send the party? Hmmm thatcher brought in the laws to limit unions etc , but blair got in and did not recinde a single law so was happy to keep them ,so much for the working man then? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner. 100% agree that the Labour 2019 manifesto was brilliant & fully funded. I am not a massive Corbyn fan however he was the only one to put pen to paper saying he would house all ex service personal in that manifesto. Also any company applying for a government contract would have to pay tax in the UK (no tax payers money going off shore) no dodgy fast lane vip profiting from COVID. The one main thing that I did like about JC was that he could not be bought & the establishment hated that fact. It's also got to be said he build the LP was it the largest European party & took it from loosing money to financial stability. As for quotes about Militant unions that's the same people that fought for things we take for granted today, eg contracts of employment for a starter, maternity rights & pay, holidays, weekends off etc etc etc Without them you would be going to the workhouse everyday in the hope of being picked to work, and to come out uninjured from the dangerous working conditions " | |||
"Hijacking my own thread "I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate." Which is summed up nicely by "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others." I'm not labour per se but on that side of the spectrum. I'm definitely not a net recipient. I'm probably top 1.5pc income. Many of my fellow lefties I speak to are also ball park top 5pc. However many of us have either come from needing state support or work in sectors that provide support to those that need help. This can give a "but by the grace of God" perspective. Just a thought, buck said 100%. He is obviously on welfare." Looks like there’s going to be an economic boom under Labour. For financial and tax advisers, accountants, lawyers and international removals companies as everyone desperately tries to keep their paltry remaining assets out of the grasping hands of the greedy Labour Party. | |||
"Hijacking my own thread "I think it would be an interesting piece of research to see how many Labour supporters on this forum are recipients of public largesse. 100% would be my estimate." Which is summed up nicely by "When you're not doing so well, vote for a better life for yourself. If you are doing quite nicely, vote for a better life for others." I'm not labour per se but on that side of the spectrum. I'm definitely not a net recipient. I'm probably top 1.5pc income. Many of my fellow lefties I speak to are also ball park top 5pc. However many of us have either come from needing state support or work in sectors that provide support to those that need help. This can give a "but by the grace of God" perspective. Just a thought, buck said 100%. He is obviously on welfare. Looks like there’s going to be an economic boom under Labour. For financial and tax advisers, accountants, lawyers and international removals companies as everyone desperately tries to keep their paltry remaining assets out of the grasping hands of the greedy Labour Party." which policies lead you to this conclusion? | |||
"I agree the middle earners are the target of tax. I agree we are addicted to immigration. However I can't see why labour are ten times worse than the current lot. If you want someone to go after the wealthy and someone to protect lower paid from immigration then turn left not right. They may not do as much as you'd want, but it takes a lot for Tories to go after ultra rich. Or for Tories to actually control immigration. As that's cutting their noses off. We’re not addicted to immigration, it’s essential if we want to grow our economy and make things like old age pensions sustainable.we could make state pension more sensible, something that is more of an insurance policy for very old age like it used to be. We could invest in our education some may actually have improved per capita productivity. If more people had training, less would need to to fall back on "low skill" jobs which would force industry hands. If we taxed in different ways we may be able to find a way of actually taxing the very rich rather than taxing immigrants and hoping the home before coming a tax burden themselves on later years. It's too late now but making a wealth fund when we sold off everything could have paid dividends. I agree immigration is necessary on the short term. Imo, it's not a long term solution but we are acting as if it is. With no plan B. Then who will do the “low skill” jobs? For my grandparents the old age pension wasn’t an insurance policy, it was their only income, they would’ve been destitute without it. All four of them worked in “low skill” jobs and never earned enough to pay into a private pension. If we continue along the same path birth rate wise then immigration is going to be the only answer, not just a short term answer. I’m unsure as to where this belief that there are enough people to fill the vacancies we have comes from.how put grandparents grew up is a different world to where we are today. And their life expectancy at retirement is different to today. They didn't need millions of immigrants to pay for pensions so what has changed ? Two things: 1. Life expectancy (you said it yourself). My grandfather retired at 65 died at 72 = 7 years pension. Based on current health my father will retire at 66 and fingers crossed can expect to live into his late 80s = lot longer on pension. 2. Falling birth rate. Less kids = lesa taxpayers to fund the longer pensions and increased numbers of concurrent pensioners.1 I agree with. Which is why we need to rework the state pension. It's there for the very end of life (last 7 years) not the last quarter. It's gone from a safety net to a benefit almost all get. I also agree that falling birth rates isn't helping. But we could look at why, address that, and then not need immigration. 1. People are living longer because of A) being healthier and B) medical intervention. That doesn’t mean they are fit enough or mentally agile enough to continue working for another 10 years, particularly in any kind of physical work (you want 70yr olds climbing scaffolding for example)? 2. One reason child benefit was brought in (and married man’s tax allowance, and mortgage tax relief) was to encourage families and maintain birthrates. The first is now restricted to two kids and the other two were scrapped. You want people to have more kids then make it affordable to have more kids. They’re expensive little fuckers! The cap on child benefit works. 2 for 2, plus we run net migration positively. Granted, not everyone will have kids but we have to draw the line. I am in the “if you can’t afford it don’t have it” camp and would remove child benefit. But the topic was about declining birthrates and ways to encourage more indigenous kids to reduce need for immigrants. The rowntree foundation would have a lot to say about child benefit removal." You need to read my next post. I would Incentivise through increasing the tax free threshold for each child. In that way it ceases to be a benefit and incentivises working/earning. I would allow that to be transferred between parents in case one is not working/earning during child’s early years. | |||
"It would be the worse case scenario if Labour was to win a 194 seat majority, basically free make up looney laws without an effective oppositition to stop them. I agree a majority of that magnitude isn't the best, regardless of whomever wins.. Agreed, however all you need to do to waste an 80 seat majority is to change leader several times and open old rifts in the party thus ensuring paralysis and political oblivion due to infighting. The cull in the run up to that majority was self inflicted, getting rid of those in the parliamentary party who had experience and pragmatism but didn't worship at the alter of what they saw was a dogs breakfast of oven ready Brexit fetishism didn't help.. Plus an incompetent liar at the helm.. They were voted in on the back of getting brexit done, if labour had not been thought of as a second referendum party the Tory majority would have been a loss in my opinion. Possibly but as Birldn says Corbyn was all over the place on the issue.." I totally agree and he was not trusted, neither was the labour party. Starmer was throwing the thought of a second referendums around too, and it really only stopped once they saw how devastating it had been at the GE. The rest is history, a chancer took his chance with Cummings at the helm, Farage stepping away with promises of a full and final brexit, only to now reappear as the tories grim reaper. The last 8 - 10 years have been a political car crash, the tories being the driver and labour the passenger, neither wearing seatbelts. | |||
"I voted labour when Blair became PM, but Corbyn sent the labour party into a place I'm still struggling to see beyond, he did a lot of good for the tories, just like the militant unions do. Where did he send the party? Hmmm thatcher brought in the laws to limit unions etc , but blair got in and did not recinde a single law so was happy to keep them ,so much for the working man then? I’d argue that Milne was *far* more responsible for Labour’s meltdown than Corbyn. (And the 2017 manifesto is still as good as any we’ve seen in the past 40 years). Shame 2019 was a dogs-dinner. 100% agree that the Labour 2019 manifesto was brilliant & fully funded. I am not a massive Corbyn fan however he was the only one to put pen to paper saying he would house all ex service personal in that manifesto. Also any company applying for a government contract would have to pay tax in the UK (no tax payers money going off shore) no dodgy fast lane vip profiting from COVID. The one main thing that I did like about JC was that he could not be bought & the establishment hated that fact. It's also got to be said he build the LP was it the largest European party & took it from loosing money to financial stability. As for quotes about Militant unions that's the same people that fought for things we take for granted today, eg contracts of employment for a starter, maternity rights & pay, holidays, weekends off etc etc etc Without them you would be going to the workhouse everyday in the hope of being picked to work, and to come out uninjured from the dangerous working conditions " Cannot tell where your post starts but got to comment about "the workhouse". Poverty stricken people lived in workhouses. Wherein jobs were created as the poor were seen as poor due to being lazy. Look into their history, fascinating but appalling. | |||
| |||
"I've already explained why I feel the way I do about Labour but happy to repeat. I just don't see Labour as a viable alternative under Keir Starmer. He loves to say things that might appear popular to voters with no real direction, no real believe and definitely with no idea on what his doing. Just uninspiring who stands for nothing and kneels to anything " Exactly the same for Farage, Sunak. To a tee. There are many good reasons not to vote Labour. But the above is just standard fare for a leader of a political party. | |||
"I've already explained why I feel the way I do about Labour but happy to repeat. I just don't see Labour as a viable alternative under Keir Starmer. He loves to say things that might appear popular to voters with no real direction, no real believe and definitely with no idea on what his doing. Just uninspiring who stands for nothing and kneels to anything Exactly the same for Farage, Sunak. To a tee. There are many good reasons not to vote Labour. But the above is just standard fare for a leader of a political party. " How do you know when a politician is lying? Their mouth moves! Except Liz Truss, she is just trying to breathe and think at the same time! | |||
"I've already explained why I feel the way I do about Labour but happy to repeat. I just don't see Labour as a viable alternative under Keir Starmer. He loves to say things that might appear popular to voters with no real direction, no real believe and definitely with no idea on what his doing. Just uninspiring who stands for nothing and kneels to anything Exactly the same for Farage, Sunak. To a tee. There are many good reasons not to vote Labour. But the above is just standard fare for a leader of a political party. How do you know when a politician is lying? Their mouth moves! Except Liz Truss, she is just trying to breathe and think at the same time!" | |||
| |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said " Some people are natural born bootlickers, they will always kowtow to those they have been told are their betters. | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said " i thought the snp made the rules in scotland during covid, and why anyone took any notice is beyond me | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said " If we need lessons on probity from the SNP, we are indeed in deep sh1t | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said i thought the snp made the rules in scotland during covid, and why anyone took any notice is beyond me" Do you not think that's a pathetic thing to say? | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said " we don't want to vote for a party that partied. That's why they are polling so low. The Jimmy's friend bit is, I'm guessing, relating to starmers time in cps. To me, that suggests swallowing what you've been told. But let's not believe that Scottish politics is immune to this. If you wouldn't vote Tory or labour because of the scandals you'd not touch snp either. | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said i thought the snp made the rules in scotland during covid, and why anyone took any notice is beyond me Do you not think that's a pathetic thing to say?" whys it a pathetic thing to say? The poster brought up the torys partying i just pointed out it was the snp that made the rules in scotland and if you took any notice of what goverments were telling you what to do thats on you no one else | |||
| |||
"They're all the same scum. If we end up with labour there will be no discernable difference in life. Don't rely on a particular party to bring change, you want change in life, change it yourselves. " To an extent, I agree. But we are moving more and more away from that mindset. People expect the state to provide for them however they choose to live their lives. | |||
"They're all the same scum. If we end up with labour there will be no discernable difference in life. Don't rely on a particular party to bring change, you want change in life, change it yourselves. To an extent, I agree. But we are moving more and more away from that mindset. People expect the state to provide for them however they choose to live their lives. " We all do to some degree I guess..roads, healthcare, bins emptied etc so I'd need to wind my opinions back on some things if i were being reasonable but there are a lot of things I think but on a lot of issues I do think we should deal with ourselves and not be reliant entirely on a system put in place for us. Education, food, self reliability with practical tasks, minor medical issues (I've been know to pull my own teeth) and even income..don't wait for wages to rise and inflation to drop and complain in the meanwhile, get busy and move jobs, retrain, be prepared to do what you need to to improve things for those around you. I've got family who live in council houses, are on jsa or whatever it all is now, universal credit and still moan about the govt, council or whoever they deem isn't doing enough for them for their contribution of zero hours ofnwork or money. there's barely a thing up with them either. Free house and pocket money in exchange for a few hours/days arsing about on line or on the phone answering questions and listening to that 30 second loop of vivaldi 211 times. Gardens full of brambles and grass whilst whinging about food prices Anyway I dunno where I'm going with this, I'm rambling a bit. | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said i thought the snp made the rules in scotland during covid, and why anyone took any notice is beyond me Do you not think that's a pathetic thing to say?whys it a pathetic thing to say? The poster brought up the torys partying i just pointed out it was the snp that made the rules in scotland and if you took any notice of what goverments were telling you what to do thats on you no one else" I recall you saying you didn't follow the rules - did you get fined? If not, you should have been. | |||
 | |||
"Thank god we've got the snp up here still listening to all you people gives Scotland a chance. You believe the shit your told some comments on this thread are spine turning. You still want to vote for a party who partied while we couldn't bury our loved ones fuck me think about it and as for that prick starmier Jimmy's friend enough said i thought the snp made the rules in scotland during covid, and why anyone took any notice is beyond me Do you not think that's a pathetic thing to say?whys it a pathetic thing to say? The poster brought up the torys partying i just pointed out it was the snp that made the rules in scotland and if you took any notice of what goverments were telling you what to do thats on you no one else I recall you saying you didn't follow the rules - did you get fined? If not, you should have been." nah didnt get fined, bit hard to fine people when you never see the old bill around, but hey i suppose when you make police stations part time thats what happens, and why should i have been fined for not staying indoors for 23 hours a day | |||
