An old statistic from a footnote in Tony Judt’s Ill Fares the Land:
‘In its last year of operation, 1994, state-owned British Rail cost the taxpayer £950 million. By 2008, Network Rail, its semiprivate successor company, cost taxpayers £5 billion.’
And from the same page:
‘The only reason that private investors are willing to purchase inefficient public goods is because the state eliminates or reduces their exposure to risk…The purchasing companies were assured that whatever happened they would be protected against serious loss - thereby undermining the economic case for privatization: the workings of the profit motive…The outcome has been the worst sort of ‘mixed economy’: individual enterprise indefinitely underwritten by public funds.’
Ange is currently taking a week or two away from her aprrentice-bricky job of building a billion social houses and leading a task force to see if they can successfully crowbar April into a new slot between November and December.. . . . . . . . . .
I never knew winter starts in April next year or that Germans don't have private pensions which is why they get better state pensions.
Do we want decent state pensions and warm pensioners or not. The answer shouldn't be based on the party you vote for.
Exactly. Some of the political gymnastics that have been performed on this thread since July have been pretty spectacular! You really do just have to chuckle…A few of the purple posters on here have got themselves into a support Labour at all costs mess on this. For years they have rightfully moaned how our state pension is poor and compared to a lot of other European countries it is. We should be paying them more they rightfully cried.
When energy prices went up they demanded more help from the Tories for everyone including pensioners and rightly so.
Then a strange thing happened their party immediately scrapped the fuel allowance for all those not on pension benefits. They knew those above the line could well struggle but no they had to defend their party. All of a sudden their beliefs suddenly changed, those rich pensioners sod them but rather alarmingly those pensioners who aren't wealthy well that's their own fault. They should have got themselves a nice private pension like they have. The posters who hate the I'm alright Jack's of this world are now behaving like them.
Now the state pension is going up again in April so I presume they will be against this because a lot if those pensioners have a private pension? No? Thought not its like they're not judging a policy just the people delivering it.
The best though are the ones saying yeah but they're getting a rise in April.
I never knew winter starts in April next year or that Germans don't have private pensions which is why they get better state pensions.
Do we want decent state pensions and warm pensioners or not. The answer shouldn't be based on the party you vote for.
I’m glad something makes you chuckle, was beginning to think you were incapable of being in a good mood. :-)Exactly. Some of the political gymnastics that have been performed on this thread since July have been pretty spectacular! You really do just have to chuckle…
And I bet they declare all that to the tax man as well!If it's the 5.71% that's predicted it'll be circa £650 which you fully deserve after paying in for 40 years.
What some people don't realise is the current cost of living increases eats into the savings us FOC's have made to make our retired life comfortable whereby some people in employment are now getting inflation busting pay rises.
A brick layer I know is now charging £300'a day and his "hod carrier" gets £170 a day, equivalent to £40k per year for a labourer.
Does that mean the wfp is even more 'peanuts'?
Tories introduced some years ago iirc. They were in 14 years, Labour 13 before that. When i was working I took no notice of pensions info, however bore oldies no ill will and certainly didn't think their pensions were the cause of the economic blackholes unlike seems to be the mass received wisdom today put out by Government.Dunno about your first question but it's irrelevant to my point.
The triplelock was a manifesto promise from Labour at the last election. They are now in power so has everything to do with this government.
This. And it irritates me beyond belief.I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.
The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.
Apparently @PPT can sort out the "scroungers"-he just won't share with us how to do it-12 days and counting.I guess it’s not peanuts to the recipients that only just fall outside the arbitrary line where is not longer receivable.
The worst of it is that those who have paid their full stamp and don’t have any other previsions fall outside and those who haven’t contributed do. So you can theoretically end up in a situation where those who haven’t potentially worked a day in their life being better off than someone who hasn’t had a day on the dole - and that is inherently unjust.
Spot on. The last reduction in NI was purely political. Labour should have reserved the right to reverse it on getting into power and seeing the state of the economy. I don't get why politicians of all parties back themselves into a corner on stuff like this-oh yes I do, the bloody press and their ability to spin anything the way their puppet masters dictate.The problem with governments is that they bring in initiatives that are hard to take away once they have done it without causing a shit storm. The winter fuel allowance being one.
The Tory party cut national insurance by 2% when no one was asking for this and they knew that they were almost certainly going to lose an election. That just creates a bigger tax hole.