Thanks. I think Starmer has his links with the old socialist party, too.
The DDP is a minefield. When the state prosecutes, it is often on the weight of public opinion. Which is a bit suspect to me.
Another leftist view I have @foginsan
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Labour Government
- Thread starter SkyBlueFlux
- Start date
The DDP is a minefield. When the state prosecutes, it is often on the weight of public opinion. Which is a bit suspect to me.
Another leftist view I have @foginsan
Of course. The debate was “would any money be saved if everyone eligible applied”. Of the 800,000 eligible, it’s inconceivable that even most of them would apply. And if they did, we couldn’t process the applications until time. Martin Lewis reckoned that with a huge push, the most they could get on pension credit would 100,000 out of the 800,000.
Labour knew this of course, which is why they planned that removing WFA would save money. If they actually expected a majority to claim pension credit, they would have known it wouldn’t save money and presumably would not have done it. Although tbf I do wonder if it was actually done to save money at all, but was more out a loathing of giving better off people £300.
Are you complaining that they were telling the truth about it saving money?
Sorry, Chippy, but to admit that you've not listened to someone's argument but think they must be an idiot because of an argument that you have heard perhaps explains a lot.I don't have time to listen to it, but I imagine the person saying it is an idiot then.
There are - according to Martin Lewis - about 800,000 people eligible for pension credit who don't claim it. The average amount given to people who do claim is £3,900 per year (Martin Lewis again).
So schoolboy maths, if the 800,000 claimed it that would cost 800,000 x £3,900 = £3.12bn per year, i.e. way more than the amount of WFA saved.
QED
So just winding up Labour luvvies, eh?I wouldn't miss it for the world mate. We've had donkeys years on the Tory thread with the same Labour luvvies slagging off every conservative for breathing. It's lovely having a few months of fun at their expense, and I look forward to the next 5 years of same... if the government lasts that long, which it may not.
Unrelated,
I don't doubt that, and I also don't doubt that those working in the public sector would like more money - who wouldn't? But I do wonder whether we should question whether those in the public sector *should* have comparable pay? Maybe it should be higher than the private sector because it's a terrible career and awful working conditions? Or maybe it should be lower because of better conditions and benefits other than salary? I don't know.
It's not like people are press-ganged into working the in public sector is it. I mean they CHOOSE to go into the public sector and they can leave it and get a better paid job elsewhere if they think their skills are worth it. I think the two career paths are entirely different with a different set of benefits and values, and it's far more complicated than saying public sector pays X, private pays Y and therefore public must get Y. There's pension contributions, retirement age, holiday entitlement, the free electric bike (for example), gym membership, sick pay, life assurance, flexible working, god knows what else.
My point is there is much more to it than pay.
So forgive me if I say that this argument - "they CHOOSE to go into the public sector and they can leave it and get a better paid job elsewhere if they think their skills are worth it" - is why there's a shortage of NHS staff (relieved by lots of visas for immigrants) and trains are cancelled. (Despite driver wages being so high because privatisation meant they realised what the market rate was for their skills.)
The Future’s Blue!
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 17 Dec 2019
- Messages
- 10,838
- Team supported
- City
Bloody hell, if the right are like this now, just wait for the budget ;-)
They've already spent a lot of time and energy criticising the budget six weeks before it.Bloody hell, if the right are like this now, just wait for the budget ;-)
Bloody hell, if the right are like this now, just wait for the budget ;-)
I know.
Austerity 2.0 will have you bone hard and forgetting the last 14 years of you bemoaning austerity 1.0.
Fear not though, a few of us will be here to remind you of your past attitudes towards so called Tory policies.
Fordyboy46
Well-Known Member
Been a great start for Labour, Starmer knows how to lose votes in an instant
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
So what would you do, chain them to their desks? Or perhaps some form of conscription?So just winding up Labour luvvies, eh?
So forgive me if I say that this argument - "they CHOOSE to go into the public sector and they can leave it and get a better paid job elsewhere if they think their skills are worth it" - is why there's a shortage of NHS staff (relieved by lots of visas for immigrants) and trains are cancelled. (Despite driver wages being so high because privatisation meant they realised what the market rate was for their skills.)
Chippy_boy
Well-Known Member
No, I’m sure it will save money and they said it would. I’m complaining about them doing it.Are you complaining that they were telling the truth about it saving money?
It is entirely unnecessary, heartless and downright immoral. Anyone who believes this “we were forced to do it to stabilize the economy” nonsense, needs their lumps feeling. It’s the most ludicrous excuse I have ever heard in my life.