Jump to content

The banker loving, baby-eating Tory party thread (regenerated)


blandy

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

Oh.

Pants :(

The articles this week have been about how they intend to put this particular bit in place: appointing a new regulatory body and so on.

From The Grauniad:

Quote

The digital minister, Matt Hancock, who is to set to formally start the process with a written statement to the House of Commons on Monday

Also, from that article:

Quote

Porn site users will have to provide details from a credit card, which cannot be legally issued to anyone under 18, according to the Mail on Sunday. Gambling websites use the same system of verification.

That isn't correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, snowychap said:

The articles this week have been about how they intend to put this particular bit in place: appointing a new regulatory body and so on.

From The Grauniad:

Also, from that article:

That isn't correct.

Completely speculative, and from a position of absolute ignorance - I wonder how much crossover there is with the government and leading gambling companies. And how powerful the gambling lobby is...

I bet it's more than the porn industry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Completely speculative, and from a position of absolute ignorance - I wonder how much crossover there is with the government and leading gambling companies. And how powerful the gambling lobby is...

I bet it's more than the porn industry.

I'd be tempted to agree with you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, bickster said:

State Pension aged gone up to 68 from 2037 brought forward 8 years

 

Sod 'em, they vote Labour

Affects anyone between the age of 39 and 47. I'm 43 :( I wouldn't be surprised if it changes again before that and I'll be looking at 70+ to see a state pension.... assuming I ever do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Affects anyone between the age of 39 and 47. I'm 43 :( I wouldn't be surprised if it changes again before that and I'll be looking at 70+ to see a state pension.... assuming I ever do.

Yep I'm fully expecting to go past 67 in 15 years time too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Affects anyone between the age of 39 and 47. I'm 43 :( I wouldn't be surprised if it changes again before that and I'll be looking at 70+ to see a state pension.... assuming I ever do.

you'll be enrolled in a pension scheme by law that starts contributing 8% of your salary before long ( 4% you , 4% from your employee , though I think it's 2% currently))

you might not be able to get the state pension until 70+ but you could in theory get out earlier  ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

you'll be enrolled in a pension scheme by law that starts contributing 8% of your salary before long ( 4% you , 4% from your employee , though I think it's 2% currently))

you might not be able to get the state pension until 70+ but you could in theory get out earlier  ?

 

I don't plan on working till I get the state pension mate. I doubt I'll live that long :) I have paid into my own pension since I was 18.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, bickster said:

State Pension aged gone up to 68 from 2037 brought forward 8 years

 

Sod 'em, they vote Labour

Yes and they say people live longer and that's an excuse for doing it. Its a real attack on people who are  in low paid jobs who cant afford a private pension  so they have to work until they drop. In the space of a few years its gone from 60-68 for Women and 65-68 for men. Also they rose the amount of years from 30 to 35 of NI contributions to get the full pension and if you are short you have the option of buying the gap years which works out at £600 a year

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The welfare state will wither and die. Story after story will be pump out, cost, performance, faults, flaws and scandals portrayed as inherent, the frog will boil and the public will demand they go.

And we will only miss it when it's gone. NHS, pensions, schools... I'd include the BBC. Many people, some very powerful, some very capable, a potent few both, would like these gone. Let the parasites pay for themselves. Think of your wage slip, the tax taken, your money, for failed institutions. Why should we pay for them in a modern world?

It's hard to be positive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

The welfare state will wither and die. Story after story will be pump out, cost, performance, faults, flaws and scandals portrayed as inherent, the frog will boil and the public will demand they go.

And we will only miss it when it's gone. NHS, pensions, schools... I'd include the BBC. Many people, some very powerful, some very capable, a potent few both, would like these gone. Let the parasites pay for themselves. Think of your wage slip, the tax taken, your money, for failed institutions. Why should we pay for them in a modern world?

It's hard to be positive.

That is what has been happening for the last 7 years certainly. The tide can change though and perhaps given the recent election result it is. Despite the narrative in the right wing media/rags being a call for more of the same it seems more people are finally waking up to what is happening.

As a country we’d have to be stupid to continue to sleep walk into the destruction of the NHS and other public services and the removal of the welfare safety net. I think now we have seen a few chickens come home to roost and the tipping point has been reached where the Tories austerity is now being shown very publically – the dire problems in the NHS and social care, the stagnation of wages, the contempt the government hold our public servants in, schools sending round begging bowls to parents, the Grenfell fire tragedy, the lack of Police officers, life expectancy no longer rising and the state pension being pushed further away etc etc, I think people will now want an alternative to what the Tories have given us

The cycle can then start again where Labour will have to spend to improve the public services/ the welfare state that the Tories have tried to destroy.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking to my local pharmacist the other day about gp group practices being more about profit than care for patients. This particular one we were discussing take on 50 new patients a week when they cant care for the ones they have.  The biggest difference for me over the last 30 years is the quality of care from your GP has gone downhill. I know that's digressing form pensions but its all a big worry  the way this country has gone. 

Labour have a better idea with regard to pension age. People who do hard manual jobs cannot go on as long as people who work in offiices. they should be allowed to retire sooner. You cant expect nurses who work on wards to work until 68 they will burn out well before then. Needs to be scaled depending on the job you do

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, PaulC said:

I was talking to my local pharmacist the other day about gp group practices being more about profit than care for patients. This particular one we were discussing take on 50 new patients a week when they cant care for the ones they have.  The biggest difference for me over the last 30 years is the quality of care from your GP has gone downhill. I know that's digressing form pensions but its all a big worry  the way this country has gone. 

Labour have a better idea with regard to pension age. People who do hard manual jobs cannot go on as long as people who work in offiices. they should be allowed to retire sooner. You cant expect nurses who work on wards to work until 68 they will burn out well before then. Needs to be scaled depending on the job you do

That is an absolutely impossible to quantify policy, its utter nonsense. Who is to say the stress in the office job is killing you more slowly than the bricky on the building site's manual work.

The only fair system is what we currently have, a fixed age to claim your state pension. It's the same for everyone then.

How would they calculate the retirement age for people who had done many various and different types of employment throughout their life (that would be most people)?

If you say, it's the last job you did, I can see a nice line in companies being set up to get people one month's manual Labour and an early retirement,

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PaulC said:

I was talking to my local pharmacist the other day about gp group practices being more about profit than care for patients. This particular one we were discussing take on 50 new patients a week when they cant care for the ones they have.  The biggest difference for me over the last 30 years is the quality of care from your GP has gone downhill. I know that's digressing form pensions but its all a big worry  the way this country has gone. 

Labour have a better idea with regard to pension age. People who do hard manual jobs cannot go on as long as people who work in offiices. they should be allowed to retire sooner. You cant expect nurses who work on wards to work until 68 they will burn out well before then. Needs to be scaled depending on the job you do

On the first point. PCT's wasted money like there was no tomorrow and CCG's shifted those opportunities elsewhere. Led by GP's, people predicted that some areas would experience patient number increases as a way to increase direct revenue. Worked in benefits, why not health! Though that's a massive oversimplification. 
Both systems were/are mismanaged, or had the potential to be. Though it wasn't helped by very many politicians forgetting to properly explain/factor in population increases, people living longer and the costs of new treatments/technology and their implementation. 

Retirement age reform should come after retirement living and housing reform, in terms of importance. It is not as easy as saying, you worked this hard so should retire earlier, particularly in the public sector. We need to give people chances to part-retire/retire early, work less/contribute more, or improve a work/life/economic balance, that will be achieved by delivering affordable living, which by 2037 will look very different.

The public sector certainly offers better progression/certainty/flexibility. That's a lot tougher in the private sector where pensions are less fulfilling and employment and career change past 55 is a concern.

Labour might have a different approach but whichever party you feel is getting it right, imo, everyone is failing to offer anything but a piecemeal approach to solving the looming retirement problem.

Edited by itdoesntmatterwhatthissay
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Crime on the rise, Police numbers at their lowest since 1985, NHS unfunded and Education seeing increasing numbers of teachers leaving the profession... it's like a repeat of the early 90's.

You always know what you are going to get with the Tories.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PaulC said:

I was talking to my local pharmacist the other day about gp group practices being more about profit than care for patients. This particular one we were discussing take on 50 new patients a week when they cant care for the ones they have.  The biggest difference for me over the last 30 years is the quality of care from your GP has gone downhill. I know that's digressing form pensions but its all a big worry  the way this country has gone. 

Labour have a better idea with regard to pension age. People who do hard manual jobs cannot go on as long as people who work in offiices. they should be allowed to retire sooner. You cant expect nurses who work on wards to work until 68 they will burn out well before then. Needs to be scaled depending on the job you do

The system you are talking about is unenforceable. Who will decide who is burning out in their job? It seems like the highest burn out rates are amongst pretty sedentary jobs with a much higher mental stress factor rather than manual labour jobs. I've got a brother and a father who are/were both hard manual labourers and they both say that their companies promoted the older workers to positions with less manual load as they got older. In an office position you generally get more and more mental responsibility as you get older.

As Bickster said above a cut off age is the only fair way to do this - if you burn out earlier you will most likely go on benefits anyway. 

A way that could work is if we adapt something similar to what Switzerland has where they encourage people to work longer by increasing the pensions earned for taking extra years. It's worked wonders for them, and might also work well here.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â