The Labour Government

hilts said:
View attachment 140816

Politicians don't you just love them, this 22bn black hole seems to be like a Labour anti nom dom pledge. Before the election non doms were gonna pay for fucking everything and after the election the black hole is stopping them doing fucking everything.
Click to expand...
She's as bad the Tories. A careerist politician more concerned with looking after herself than her constituency.
 
hilts said:
View attachment 140816

Politicians don't you just love them, this 22bn black hole seems to be like a Labour anti nom dom pledge. Before the election non doms were gonna pay for fucking everything and after the election the black hole is stopping them doing fucking everything.
Click to expand...

Self serving liars every one of them
 
mancityvstoke said:
Self serving liars every one of them
Click to expand...
I could post some of Starmers justice for waspi women comments but one has to be careful with the gravitational pull of a black hole, or a purples arsehole as its now scientifically called.

I think they should have claimed it was 100bn or more because one day a decent journalist will number crunch the cost of broken promises and it will be a fuck lot higher than the mysterious 22bn.
 
law74 said:
You seem to have missed the children of "ordinary people" who currently pay £5,500 a term to give their children the connections required to get rich in monetary terms.
Click to expand...

It's more than that tbh. I had a check of the fees of of all three private schools in my town and the one in the neighbouring town.

All at least 20k for day pupils. 15k is the old rates from people whose kids have reached university and graduated.
 
bluethrunthru said:
I get her point but not the best look

Click to expand...

Some of the unrepeatable comments underneath the post, :) I’m trying to understand why women need compensation for the change in state pension age to bring retirement age equal with men.
I don’t recall labour promising to pay compensation during the election campaign in fact they didn’t promise much at all
 
paulchapo said:
The poster doesn't assume they are all corrupt but mismanagement of funds in that area does happen a lot. If they're giving 11 billion of my money to it, as a taxpayer I contribute to that money, I want to see how it's used and what benefits it's having.
Our own government and the previous one are corrupt too.
Click to expand...

Have you been visited by three spirits tonight?
 
paulchapo said:
They have plenty of money, haven't they just sent 50 million to Syria? That's on top of 11 billion to Africa for some climate claptrap, which will go straight into upgrading the mansions of the dictators in that country, plus our regular top up to Ukraine. We elect these governments to serve the people of this country first and foremost but they seem to delight in making our own citizens suffer while throwing money hand over fist abroad. It's gaslighting of the highest order.
Click to expand...
I get you, mate, but aren’t we here to also support other nations, especially when they are flooding to our country from war torn states?

Syria is new aid to support with food, medication and other forms of humanitarian aid to help their country rebuild. The funding for Africa was agreed during the previous COP and started in 2021, aiding those countries with climate resilience and helping them to regain on lost ground when it comes to farming and agriculture, helping not only them, but us as well with food production. If we’d have walked away from that, it would’ve made it much easier for the likes of Russia and China to make even more influence and also bring more chaos to those areas, probably leading to more migration.

I do agree, we need to look after our own better and we need huge reform with the broken social contract. However, we are the ones to have taken huge advantage of these countries and have a duty to give something back, if not only to help ourselves.
 
meltonblue said:
Yep and it’s a balancing act, our international standing is still one of our best assets.
Click to expand...
Lets not kid ourselves the UK's international standing seems to have gone years ago. The only reason why we are a world power is due to our nuclear capability.

With the exception of maybe Kenyans, people in most Africa countries blame the UK for many of their problems and see Russia and China as the panacea to the west. Russia obviously supporting their favoured dictator in countries undergoing civil war by using the Wagner group and their other mercenary affiliates.

With the advent of the internet in the more developed African nations, the negative aspects of the UK's (and France's) colonial past have been amplified, whilst the positive aspects have been diminished due to extortionate loans for infrastructure from the likes of China and Russia that they can never afford to repay. But to the locals the new road, train line, water supply was built by China or Russia for them, making them appear philanthropic when in reality its just another form of indebtedness.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Some of the unrepeatable comments underneath the post, :) I’m trying to understand why women need compensation for the change in state pension age to bring retirement age equal with men.
I don’t recall labour promising to pay compensation during the election campaign in fact they didn’t promise much at all
Click to expand...

It's always looked a really odd campaign to me. As far as I can see, the oldest women affected when it changed in 1995, 44 at the time, and that group would have expected to retire at 60, but would now retire at 61.

Anyone losing the full five years would have been 40 or under. It's hard to believe that something so momentous passed anyone by for around two decades.

The 2011 changes brought the move to 65 forward by 2 years, to 2018, but the group affected were contacted directly to let them know it was happening, and would have had 7 years notice of a 1 year change.

I also, never understood the poverty situation if people were having to retire later. Is the argument that they gave up work at 60 without realising the pension wouldn't come?

Am I missing something obvious?
 
bluenova said:
It's always looked a really odd campaign to me. As far as I can see, the oldest women affected when it changed in 1995, 44 at the time, and that group would have expected to retire at 60, but would now retire at 61.

Anyone losing the full five years would have been 40 or under. It's hard to believe that something so momentous passed anyone by for around two decades.

The 2011 changes brought the move to 65 forward by 2 years, to 2018, but the group affected were contacted directly to let them know it was happening, and would have had 7 years notice of a 1 year change.

I also, never understood the poverty situation if people were having to retire later. Is the argument that they gave up work at 60 without realising the pension wouldn't come?

Am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...

Some foolish women did give up work at 60 or only realised just before.

Can't say they are deserving of much sympathy though.
 
bluenova said:
It's always looked a really odd campaign to me. As far as I can see, the oldest women affected when it changed in 1995, 44 at the time, and that group would have expected to retire at 60, but would now retire at 61.

Anyone losing the full five years would have been 40 or under. It's hard to believe that something so momentous passed anyone by for around two decades.

The 2011 changes brought the move to 65 forward by 2 years, to 2018, but the group affected were contacted directly to let them know it was happening, and would have had 7 years notice of a 1 year change.

I also, never understood the poverty situation if people were having to retire later. Is the argument that they gave up work at 60 without realising the pension wouldn't come?

Am I missing something obvious?
Click to expand...
No, in my books, it all a scam by the solicitors who are acting for them. There was so much time for people to understand the change that it’s hard to see how a claim could even have been made.

I remember watching an interview a few years ago and the person affected was saying that it was wrong for them to change the rules has they had planned to retire at 60 years old. When questioned on the timeline, they stated that they were aware but didn’t receive a letter of the change, so should therefore be entitled to compensation. Even the interviewer was lost for words.
 
bluethrunthru said:
I get her point but not the best look

Click to expand...

Labour had already dropped a commitment to compensation. Another "difficult choice" but one that we campaigned on in 2019 (for redress for the waspi women - at least for those for whom the change left them with no job and years to wait till the new pension age).
 
Vic said:
Labour had already dropped a commitment to compensation. Another "difficult choice" but one that we campaigned on in 2019 (for redress for the waspi women - at least for those for whom the change left them with no job and years to wait till the new pension age).
Click to expand...

campaigned on in 2019 and lost - didn't do so in 2024 and won.

The fact is Labour - instead of quoting the 22bn black hole need to personalise it sector by sector - ie the promise X but set aside no funding to do it then add in what they can do with the limited resources
 
Meanwhile, in a webinar for Labour members, Wes Streeting commits to the NHS free at point of use, citing his own treatment for cancer without having to worry about the cost - "unlike in the USA", so that's him on Trump's "Marxist" list.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
Some foolish women did give up work at 60 or only realised just before.

Can't say they are deserving of much sympathy though.
Click to expand...

I think that's a bit harsh, but I just don't understand how it happens. Nobody in their lives knew? Nobody at work made the connection? Surely you see other people passing 60 and not retiring?
 
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