General Election - December 12th, 2019

Who will you vote for in the 2019 General Election?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 160 30.9%

  • Labour

    Votes: 230 44.4%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 59 11.4%

  • Green Party

    Votes: 13 2.5%

  • Brexit Party

    Votes: 28 5.4%

  • Plaid Cymru/SNP

    Votes: 7 1.4%

  • Other

    Votes: 21 4.1%
  • Total voters
    518
I see the Tory "manifesto" pamphlet has almost as may pictures as pages of text....................when they say pictures are they the ones that Johnson can colour in whilst on the campaign trail.
 
BobKowalski said:
No idea whether you are condemning Johnson for booting the issue into the long grass of a Royal Commission or praising him.

Still potholes and hospital parking charges. Good to see the Tories tackling the two big issues of our time.
Click to expand...
Just staring that as an issue it can only be sorted out by all UK political parties orherwise it becomes a political football that benefits nobody.
 
bluethrunthru said:
It is equalised - the WASPI women were affected by certain circumstances - read this

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_Against_State_Pension_Inequality
Click to expand...
Seriously, you would have to have been blind, deaf and dumb not to notice what was happening. There was a TV advertising campaign + letters to every female NI payer.
Now they did the equalization too quickly in my view and the years you worked to pay a full stamp needed work - but that's all. It's certainly nowhere near a bill of £58bn.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Seriously, you would have to have been blind, deaf and dumb not to notice what was happening. There was a TV advertising campaign + letters to every female NI payer.
Now they did the equalization too quickly in my view and the years you worked to pay a full stamp needed work - but that's all. It's certainly nowhere near a bill of £58bn.
Click to expand...

have you been an actuary for long?
 
@bluethrunthru - It doesn't strike me as *terribly* unfair to give someone 15 years notice that their retirement age will be adjusted to be the same as men's, meaning they will have to work an extra 5 years, just as men do.

What strikes you as being unfair about that and worthy of compensation? If it was like the year before retirement or something well yes they'd have a point, but even then only a point, not a cast iron case. The basic principle that men and women in this day and age should have the same retirement rights, is surely not in doubt? That women retiring 5 years earlier than men is discriminatory and wrong.
 
Chippy_boy said:
@bluethrunthru - It doesn't strike me as *terribly* unfair to give someone 15 years notice that their retirement age will be adjusted to be the same as men's, meaning they will have to work an extra 5 years, just as men do.

What strikes you as being unfair about that and worthy of compensation? If it was like the year before retirement or something well yes they'd have a point, but even then only a point, not a cast iron case. The basic principle that men and women in this day and age should have the same retirement rights, is surely not in doubt? That women retiring 5 years earlier than men is discriminatory and wrong.
Click to expand...

is the correct answer .

equal rights and gender discrimination works both ways.
 
Len Rum said:
About 19k are nurses 'who would otherwise leave'.
WTF does that mean?
Load of students in the figure and thousands from abroad who will have to pay £650 for the privilege.
Hmmm....
Probably end up the same way as the 200k starter homes they were meant to have built.
Click to expand...
PS Also the 50k (Not) new nurses is in ten years time.
 
Chippy_boy said:
@bluethrunthru - It doesn't strike me as *terribly* unfair to give someone 15 years notice that their retirement age will be adjusted to be the same as men's, meaning they will have to work an extra 5 years, just as men do.

What strikes you as being unfair about that and worthy of compensation? If it was like the year before retirement or something well yes they'd have a point, but even then only a point, not a cast iron case. The basic principle that men and women in this day and age should have the same retirement rights, is surely not in doubt? That women retiring 5 years earlier than men is discriminatory and wrong.
Click to expand...

The unfairness lies in accelerating the equalisation over a shorter timeframe than originally intended. It could have been done more gradually. The principle of equalisation is not the issue.
 
BobKowalski said:
The unfairness lies in accelerating the equalisation over a shorter timeframe than originally intended. It could have been done more gradually. The principle of equalisation is not the issue.
Click to expand...
You should try telling the WASPI women that. Some of them seem to thing the 1995 act is itself unfair. It isn't, of course.
 
Last edited:
BlueAnorak said:
Just staring that as an issue it can only be sorted out by all UK political parties orherwise it becomes a political football that benefits nobody.
Click to expand...

It can only be sorted by allocating eye popping sums of money and encouraging immigration to bend the age curve down in the working population. Kicking the issue to a Royal Commision is just a means to avoid it and simultaneously claim to be doing something about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top