The Labour Government

M18CTID said:
Where has she said that? Can't see anything online. All I know is that some weeks back Tice was proposing having more say in where pension funds are invested. Perhaps you missed that? And if you didn't, surely you don't trust him either?
Click to expand...
It’s their aim.
 
metalblue said:
It’s not the fraud that is the problem IMHO. I personally know someone who gets £4,600 a month in benefits. 3 kids, 2 with autism, works 16 hours a week. She isn’t claiming anything she isn’t entitled to or fiddling the system but she would need to be earning £80k a year putting her on the top 5% of earners in the UK to bring that home. Her life situation doesn’t strike me as being particularly unusual either.

Oh and she would be no worse off not working - maybe £200 a month (but wouldn’t have to pay for fuel to get to work or parking etc). With the lifting of the 2 child benefit cap she may start getting more, I would have to ask her.

The system is broken.
Click to expand...
I deal with the public and families daily. The amount of people who are waiting for diagnoses of autism or ADHD for their children is staggering, I will speak to several a week. They are eager for their kids to be diagnosed. Personally I would be thrilled to hear that the children dont have it. They want them to be diagnosed with it. Fucking crazy
 
Jimmieblue said:
Labour want to force pension fund providers to invest in British assets. In other words do the job that Governments should have been doing all along with our taxes.
Click to expand...
If when you say force you mean give pension providers tax breaks for investing in Britain I don’t really see a problem with that. Effectively the government would be making a contribution to that investment which should keep you happy.
 
argyle said:
If your concern was because of the story today by the former NATO chief, he's a paid for lobbyist for American defence contractors.

He wants Britain to buy more American military hardware.

He and American defence companies still want countries to buy hardware built for warfare from another era. As has been shown in Ukraine, drones and lots of them do far more damage than personnel, tanks, planes and missiles and they're a fraction of the cost.

In any case Labour have been in power for less than 2 years and the decrease in our military has been over decades.

Labour have made many mistakes but this can't be laid at the current lots door.
Click to expand...

My concern is our government doesn’t appear to be paying any attention to the reality of the world today - mere words alone isn’t enough. Cutting £3.5bn from this years defence budget is simply mental. That is Labours decision. I believe lifting the 2 child cap cost £3.5bn… perhaps mere coincidence.

Yes previous administrations over the past 20 plus years have been cutting defence spending - ignoring the best defence is strength then politically it’s easy to justify from a spend / benefit perspective, ie it’s dead money if you don’t fight wars versus spending on anything else domestically at least brings tangible benefit to a section of society or your local town etc etc.
 
BobKowalski said:
Yes it does. It exists via the EU and via NATO. Both organisations require European nations to act and work together for the collective good. Ukraine is fighting a war for the opportunity to join both organisations. You may dismiss them or question their worth but you cannot deny the reality of their existance.
Click to expand...
I was finished when you typed Nato followed by collective good, thats proper funny.
 
west didsblue said:
Why would anyone after Johnson and Truss?
Click to expand...
Jimmie is one of those where if the right wing party propose a policy = good. Even if it is taking away the triple lock from poor pensioners. Whereas if Labour do the same policy = bad.
 
Uncle Wally One Ball said:
I deal with the public and families daily. The amount of people who are waiting for diagnoses of autism or ADHD for their children is staggering, I will speak to several a week. They are eager for their kids to be diagnosed. Personally I would be thrilled to hear that the children dont have it. They want them to be diagnosed with it. Fucking crazy
Click to expand...

It is crazy mate. I’ve seen you even get helpful tips on the forms - for example one is my kid won’t walk even if they can. Kids are lazy fuckers, mine alway wanted carrying when they could walk. Hell I’d want to be carried if I could be!!!

One of the big problems for me is it is not means tested. The money was initially deemed to be given as the parent would need to work less to support child (ok, that seems fair), but they don’t look at what else you get if you have more kids diagnosed. There is only so much work you can give up given there is a finite number of working hours in a week!! So start means testing it with a tapering effect for second child onwards.
 
west didsblue said:
If when you say force you mean give pension providers tax breaks for investing in Britain I don’t really see a problem with that. Effectively the government would be making a contribution to that investment which should keep you happy.
Click to expand...
No it won’t keep me happy. I happen to think they should allow the pension fund providers to invest the funds wherever they seem fit and for the benefit of their clients. Government intervention not a good idea they should be getting on with governing and doing what they said in their manifesto.
 
CWAC blue said:
It does seem to be a lottery or knowing the system as to who gets it, the missus’ father and his wife do very well out of it both late 80’s (claimed before pension age) both get state pension, full pip, mobility on top and claim as each others carers.
Click to expand...
If you claim a State Pension, you cannot get carers allowance
 
hcblue95 said:
Jimmie is one of those where if the right wing party propose a policy = good. Even if it is taking away the triple lock from poor pensioners. Whereas if Labour do the same policy = bad.
Click to expand...
I do think the triple lock should go and the State Pension for all who have contributed should be a lot higher. Fiddling about with it has just created a lot of unnecessary complication.
 
We've got Guardiola said:
I have noticed over the years that the energy has just been drained from the country, probably since COVID. It's because of the cost of living and that kind of thing. It's hard to consider working harder when you're not paid enough for a comfortable standard of living let alone luxuries such as buying a house.

Our little one has just started nursery and there is basically no point in my partner working 5 days a week because due to childcare costs she would only gain £50pm more. We're lucky that we have my salary but then if I work overtime on my salary then I would be taxed 40% on every £1 extra I earn so I don't bother. Work and effort just doesn't really pay and where it does it's quickly taken away from you.

If people aren't comfortable then they lose faith in the system and many even lash out at the system. The government doesn't act upon this because unfortunately it is cheaper to have a significant number of people claiming peanuts on benefits than it is to invest at great cost in infastructure, the economy etc to help them get them off benefits.

What's really happening is there is an underclass of people who are happy to accept living on peanuts handed to them by the state because the alternative is well living on peanuts earnt by themselves instead. Peanuts are still peanuts.
Click to expand...
A post of 2 halves.
I've been bahging on about childcare costs since my grandson was born 13 years ago. The 'trap' you outline is the same for everybody. The single parent on benefits is the one most 'stuck' in it (unless they have fit grandparents) with no way out unless they somehow get employment that pays a grand a week.
If childcare was a state run, and free for all, people could escape the trap and find full time employment.
Most caught in the trap are not, as you describe them, underclass. They just have no way out.
 
Jimmieblue said:
No it won’t keep me happy. I happen to think they should allow the pension fund providers to invest the funds wherever they seem fit and for the benefit of their clients. Government intervention not a good idea they should be getting on with governing and doing what they said in their manifesto.
Click to expand...
Last time financial institutions were given free rein to invest where they want without interference we ended up with the global financial crisis.
 
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