UK Politics Thread

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by STEED

A year on from the snap election and what have we got?

LibDems still lost in the woods, PM May weaker than ever and it shows, I picked up on some info her cabinet is so divided over Brexit she has broken the cabinet down even further on this one. Brexit could be her downfall. The cress of the wave old Jezzer has been riding on has gone and in most PMQ's he fails to deliver, granted the last one was a rare one. The Conservatives are deeply divided over Brexit and Labour has a number of its own problems going on.

The cold fact is this...All three party's are unfit for government and should not be trusted. My advice is not to vote for any of them as it stands at the moment.

May should really have gone after the last election result. I guess she (and the Tories in general) got too cocky about their pre-election poll lead - going by that dire manifesto.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by STEED

You do know you just had ago at millions of people who have been lifted out by the government paying tax. That decision was taken by the government of the day not by us millions who have been lifted out of the tax band.

I envy you actually you lucky bugga but one thing that does annoy me is the fact that because I retired at the age of 52, I am three years short on NI contributions to receive a full state pension (£12 per week less than the wife will recive) and to make up the difference I am required to pay £2500 approximately.

Stll being 5+ years away from state retirement age I've yet to decide whether or not to make up the shortfall because you need to be in receipt of the pension for three years before you break even.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by STEED

PM May is without question far to weak and the way she has handled Brexit has been a poor show.

The next two days of debating and voting on the EU Withdrawal Bill may prove crucial for her.

Personally, I think she'll survive because even the Tory remoaners fear the alternative....a Corbyn (one of the biggest anti EU donkeys in the stable) led government.

[JU_88]

Well, at least you get a state pension Jim, I don't reckon it will exist when I hit retirement in 25-30 years :P

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well, at least you get a state pension Jim, I don't reckon it will exist when I hit retirement in 25-30 years :P

I should imagine scrapping the state pension would be the death knell for any government contemplating it.

My main worry is if the rules changed whereby only those not in receipt of an alternative would be the only ones to receive a state pension.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I envy you actually you lucky bugga but one thing that does annoy me is the fact that because I retired at the age of 52, I am three years short on NI contributions to receive a full state pension (£12 per week less than the wife will recive) and to make up the difference I am required to pay £2500 approximately.

Stll being 5+ years away from state retirement age I've yet to decide whether or not to make up the shortfall because you need to be in receipt of the pension for three years before you break even.

I too will be facing this situation as a non Tax/NI contributor when I get to retire in 15 odd years time. In my case jim I like the job I'm doing and the hours as well, in the terms of my rotten sciatica and knee and upper Back pain I'm able now take less pain killers by having more rest up time. I would rather do full time but I pretty sure I would be hooked on pain killers and in a poorer state health wise.


I do agree with you as you seem to me worked all your life and find out you got a short fall no fault of your own. Trouble is jim until you hit the state retirement age I don't think there is much you can do about it other than cough up the short fall.



I know I will not be able to when the time comes but hopefully I will be at the retirement age when I can bang on the DHSS desk and see if I can get any benefits. But that will be years away and the whole system would have been changed a few times by then.

[STEED]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Well, at least you get a state pension Jim, I don't reckon it will exist when I hit retirement in 25-30 years :P

I feel the way its going it will but to make it less of a blow it will hit those who have yet to be born while slowly facing it out on certain age groups.

[STEED]

I was going to be off for a break as i got things to do but it all kicked off today at Westminster. I agree with the media the SNP walkout was a stunt and they will not be able to pull that off again, that said news info suggests both Cons and Lab were doing a number on the SNP directly or indirectly.


PM May is all over the place trying to please the remainers and brexiteers which is weakness and no doubt the EU has seen this. Yes PM May has won the votes at the time of me posting this comment but she is far from standing on solid ground. I see Jezzer got a bit of surprise from his side going against him, Labour like the Tories are a long way from being united.

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I should imagine scrapping the state pension would be the death knell for any government contemplating it.

My main worry is if the rules changed whereby only those not in receipt of an alternative would be the only ones to receive a state pension.

Possibly yes, But it will have to go eventually as its not sustainable, given our demographics. more than quarter of the governments budget goes on social protection - most of that being state pension, and it will keep growing for the foreseeable future. I'm betting they will start by raising the bar as to the retirement age and earnings threshold. So less people will qualify, they will probably try to transition it, e.g encouraging the next generation to set up private pension schemes etc. If they remove it slowly enough, few will complain. - That would be the Tory way and anyway -quiet and sneaky dismantling, lots of: 'shh oh look there's something more interesting over there!'.
The Labour version would be keep it going, prop it up with borrowing and continued mass immigration until it all implodes (likely during a major economic /sovereign debt crisis where our grandchildren / children of immigrants will decide they've had enough.)

[Skybird]

A slow shift towards something new is in order - now, while we still have - maybe - a small remain of control and influence. The social wellfare state as we know it, is unsustainable.



Preferrably we start relaising that the problem also is the idea and concept of a state itself. Becasue we cannot hold a state accountable. When state mismanaged something - and it does that a lot - it has no consequences for "state". It cannot be sued. Also, state can at any time - and always does so, all the time - uniliaterally chnage the terms and conditoons of its relation to "citizens". Whereas citizens in return cannot do that.



Needless to say that those thinking they benefit from "state", support it. Thats why there is a professional officialdom. But if you think about it: its nothing else but bribery, at the cost of the non-officials. And there is nothing that "state" that could not be provided by private service providers as well. Even settling of legal disputes. Even police work. Even military defence.


In the end, every state is just a giant wallow of corruption, bribery, and looting that legitimises itself by forming a mob that is stronger than the other mobs. What rules is the law of the jungle. And nobody knows that better than the state itself.



Reason alone obviously is not sufficient to make people understand this in huge numbers. So - once again - they will need to be lectured by reality cracking down on them. My pity will be extremely limited. Pain and suffering are the best teachers.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

Possibly yes, But it will have to go eventually as its not sustainable, given our demographics. more than quarter of the governments budget goes on social protection - most of that being state pension, and it will keep growing for the foreseeable future. I'm betting they will start by raising the bar as to the retirement age and earnings threshold. So less people will qualify, they will probably try to transition it, e.g encouraging the next generation to set up private pension schemes etc. If they remove it slowly enough, few will complain. - That would be the Tory way and anyway -quiet and sneaky dismantling, lots of: 'shh oh look there's something more interesting over there!'.
The Labour version would be keep it going, prop it up with borrowing and continued mass immigration until it all implodes (likely during a major economic /sovereign debt crisis where our grandchildren / children of immigrants will decide they've had enough.)

Just for the benefit of any members following this 'pension' part of the discussion.

1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised
Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.

2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67, and then 68 introduced
The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to 68 between April 2044 and April 2046.

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/...PA_history.htm

[Jimbuna]

At long last, some common sense regarding immigration.

The government is to relax immigration rules to allow more non-EU skilled workers into the UK.

On Friday, the Home Office is expected to confirm that foreign doctors and nurses will be excluded from the government's visa cap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44477095

[JU_88]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

At long last, some common sense regarding immigration.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44477095

That seems sensible enough, but 'brain drain' is thing too. We have our own home grown doctors and yet we need more from other nations too, do those nations still have enough trained doctors for themselves? and if so why/how are they producing more than us?
I dunno its weird how people will argue for immigration based on the need for more NHS doctors, surely the elephant(s) in the room, is that we aren't producing enough doctors & nurses or - we are and they just don't want to work for the NHS because its horrible.
Fixing a nations skills shortage with migrants, should be considered a band aid or gap plug rather than a proper sustainable solution.
The current model begs the question, what are we going to do the day skilled migrants no longer want to come here for what ever reason?
E.g housing shortage, wages vs cost of living, economy tanks, political climate etc.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by JU_88

That seems sensible enough, but 'brain drain' is thing too. We have our own home grown doctors and yet we need more from other nations too, do those nations still have enough trained doctors for themselves? and if so why/how are they producing more than us?
I dunno its weird how people will argue for immigration based on the need for more NHS doctors, surely the elephant(s) in the room, is that we aren't producing enough doctors & nurses or - we are and they just don't want to work for the NHS because its horrible.
Fixing a nations skills shortage with migrants, should be considered a band aid or gap plug rather than a proper sustainable solution.
The current model begs the question, what are we going to do the day skilled migrants no longer want to come here for what ever reason?
E.g housing shortage, wages vs cost of living, economy tanks, political climate etc.

Some fair and valid points but it has worked for Canada, Australia and New Zealand to name a few.

My understanding is that a growing number of our trained medical staff prefer to go abroad once qualified for higher renumeration packages and a higher standard of living.

[Jimbuna]

Households could be left up to £1,000 a year worse off because of Brexit trade barriers, a report will suggest.

Global consultancy firm Oliver Wyman will say that under the most negative scenario of high import tariffs and high regulatory barriers the cost to the economy could total £27bn.

Business profits for supermarkets and restaurants could be wiped out because of supply chain disruption.

A rise in costs would likely be passed on to consumers, the report will argue.

The analysis, to be published next week and seen by the BBC, will make clear that even under the most favourable scenario of no tariffs and few regulatory barriers, there are likely to be increased "red tape" costs.

It will suggest that increased paperwork and delays for customs checks are likely to increase household costs by 1% a year, or £250 per household. The total cost to the economy would be £6.8bn.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44511829

This looks quite alarming if it turns out to be true