Andrew Neil and Corben interview.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Is Boris still running scared of an interview with Andrew Neil? Seems odd to think he has less balls than Sturgeon and Corbyn. 

No date has yet been agreed. Hardly the fault of Boris, that the others rushed into car crash interviews. He is said to be waiting until the postal vote date has passed, which is entirely his choice. Andrew Neil is not in charge of the election campaign.

oowee - as you gave us your expert opinion on what tax is paid in the UK, by EU nationals, perhaps you could enlighten us on the benefits situation. I won't hold my breath.

Edited November 28, 2019 by Gordon R

[grrclark]

42 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

As I understand it (and I don’t claim to be an expert) a contract (verbal or otherwise) can be terminated either by mutual consent or one party giving proper notice and compensating with the other party? The government, it is claimed gave insufficient to notice, and neither offered, payed nor negotiated any compensation.

There was no mention of possible changes to the contract (other than that the required contribution rate was variable) when it was first implemented, there was no clause which allowed the pensionable age to be arbitrarily increased!
Private financial arrangements are different, they usually state the rates are variable, and the final amount can go up or down subject to the financial situation at the time! Which is fair enough if it was made plain at the outset!
That life expectancy has increased is irrelevant, the fact, it seems that the government didn’t set the rate of contribution to take this into account is nobody’s fault but the governments.....certainly pensioners shouldn’t be disadvantaged because the government failed to predict and account for many not conveniently dying........before they attained the agreed pensionable age!

I believe the government has a moral (and legal) duty to compensate the WASPI women for the imposed change of contract! Though I believe the court has found against them! However I understand, there may be an appeal in the offing?

I do get where you are coming from, but the blunt truth of the matter is that there is not a contract as such between citizen and the government.  We may have a charter, in the form of statute, but that is variable and can and does change according to the priorities of the government of the day and the governmental priorities are largely reactive to the sentiment of the electorate.

The government of the day could say that they are prepared to pay the difference the WASPI women claim which I think Labour have stated would be £58bn.  I don't actually know if that number is right or wrong, but let's assume it is broadly correct.

Let's also assume that the contract argument holds true, there is an implied contract between state and individual that could/should be considered as such.

If that amount is to be paid in one go that means no defence budget for the year, or 60% of education is cut or 30% of healthcare is cut.  What does that mean for the implied contract between state and individual for defence or education or healthcare?

Should we ask every member of our armed forces and all those employed in the direct supply chain to them to take a year out on no pay so we can fulfil our implied contract to the WASPI women? What about their contracts with the government?

I appreciate that is a ridiculous argument, but it does illustrate the point that whilst it is easy to say the government should do this or that, the practicalities are far from easy.

The answer for the WASPI women is of course they get paid what they feel they have been cheated out of, but that in effect means that the circa 31million tax payers would need to front that bill as their tax is the fundamental source of government income, so in practical terms that means an individual cost to those taxpayers of £1,800 each, assuming of course that they all pay tax at the same rate.

Might those 31,000,000 tax payers ask about their implied tax contract with the government?

 

[Mice!]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

s Boris still running scared of an interview with Andrew Neil? Seems odd to think he has less balls than Sturgeon and Corbyn

Which way ends up worse, don't give an interview and look bad, or give the interview and look bad? 

I'm still amazed that Corbyn did it after Sturgeon's car crash

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Which way ends up worse, don't give an interview and look bad, or give the interview and look bad? 

I'm still amazed that Corbyn did it after Sturgeon's car crash

Yes better just to lie and hide from scrutiny. Dupe the gullible until it's too late. 

[Mice!]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Yes better just to lie and hide from scrutiny. Dupe the gullible until it's too late. 

Works for Corbyn 

[oowee]

Corbyn was there at the interview to stand up and be counted. Sturgeon was there at the interview to stand up and be counted.

Where is Boris? Duping the gullible. 

[Mice!]

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

Corbyn was there at the interview to stand up and be counted. Sturgeon was there at the interview to stand up and be counted.

Where is Boris? Duping the gullible. 

But they both came out of the interview worse than they went in?? So why would an intelligent person do it?

He probably still will, but why rush in.

[Westward]

4 hours ago, panoma1 said:

When the WASPI women started work, the contract was they pay the required amount of national insurance to the government, and the government agreed to pay them their pension when they reached 60 years of age! The women fulfilled their part of the contract...the government didn’t!

There was no contract in place, just an expectation based on what was then current practice. No government has ever been bound by contract with the public to maintain the status quo on anything much at all and certainly not pension age. Funny that  I've never heard anyone complain about reductions in the working week yet that was just as much a "contract" as the pension age.

If the women want equality across the board they must accept that they can't cherry pick which bits they want and which they don't and it's not always going to work in their favour. As I said, they've had plenty of notice as have the men whose pension age has also increased. Perhaps if successive governments had invested the NI contributions for the future instead of lumping it in with the tax take we'd all be better off.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

I do get where you are coming from, but the blunt truth of the matter is that there is not a contract as such between citizen and the government.  We may have a charter, in the form of statute, but that is variable and can and does change according to the priorities of the government of the day and the governmental priorities are largely reactive to the sentiment of the electorate.

The government of the day could say that they are prepared to pay the difference the WASPI women claim which I think Labour have stated would be £58bn.  I don't actually know if that number is right or wrong, but let's assume it is broadly correct.

Let's also assume that the contract argument holds true, there is an implied contract between state and individual that could/should be considered as such.

If that amount is to be paid in one go that means no defence budget for the year, or 60% of education is cut or 30% of healthcare is cut.  What does that mean for the implied contract between state and individual for defence or education or healthcare?

Should we ask every member of our armed forces and all those employed in the direct supply chain to them to take a year out on no pay so we can fulfil our implied contract to the WASPI women? What about their contracts with the government?

I appreciate that is a ridiculous argument, but it does illustrate the point that whilst it is easy to say the government should do this or that, the practicalities are far from easy.

The answer for the WASPI women is of course they get paid what they feel they have been cheated out of, but that in effect means that the circa 31million tax payers would need to front that bill as their tax is the fundamental source of government income, so in practical terms that means an individual cost to those taxpayers of £1,800 each, assuming of course that they all pay tax at the same rate.

Might those 31,000,000 tax payers ask about their implied tax contract with the government?

 

But we should all make our choices based on priorities, fairness and what is right! Even the government! The fact is the government reneged on whatever you want to call it, contract, charter, agreement, promise.......The UK are reportedly the 5th richest country in the world, if they say they can’t afford to compensate these women they are lying! They have plenty of money available to pay it, they just choose to spend it elsewhere!

For example, how much is the foreign aid budget? How much money will the government have available from not having to pay contributions to the EU, how much does the government receive through tax and duty on fuel? How much money do they give Scotland, NI and Wales under the Barnet formula? How many billions £ have the various political party’s promised In things that benefit us, if we vote them into power in the upcoming general election? it doesn’t have to be paid from the education or the healthcare or the defence budget, that is not true, it’s just the sort of tactic the government would use to turn public opinion against and as a reason to refuse to compensate these women.

 

[panoma1]

15 minutes ago, Westward said:

There was no contract in place, just an expectation based on what was then current practice. No government has ever been bound by contract with the public to maintain the status quo on anything much at all and certainly not pension age. Funny that  I've never heard anyone complain about reductions in the working week yet that was just as much a "contract" as the pension age.

If the women want equality across the board they must accept that they can't cherry pick which bits they want and which they don't and it's not always going to work in their favour. As I said, they've had plenty of notice as have the men whose pension age has also increased. Perhaps if successive governments had invested the NI contributions for the future instead of lumping it in with the tax take we'd all be better off.

Of course you haven’t, no one is going to complain when anyone gives them something! But everyone would complain when they have something they were promised taken away!
It wasn’t an “expectation” it was a promise by the government! Dunno about you? But if I make a promise, I will keep it!......... I’m no contract lawyer, but my understanding is that an offer and an acceptance forms a contract.

[Walker570]

On 27/11/2019 at 16:12, spurs 14 said:

That man is a danger to everyone in this country , one way or other he will destroy it , be it inviting terrorists , mass migration or bankrupting us !!! Seriously how can anyone vote for him !! 

00weee ????????????

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Walker570 said:

00weee ????????????

 

I think he is on about Boris  Corbyn and Boris sharing the same accountant by the look of their spending plans today  God help us if we get the likely capitulation come July or worse no deal. 

[Zapp]

Major misstep if Boris does not do an interview with AN in my opinion.  The others were trainwrecks so if you're going to have a bashing it's the best time to do it in the wake of those.

[Walker570]

9 minutes ago, Zapp said:

Major misstep if Boris does not do an interview with AN in my opinion.  The others were trainwrecks so if you're going to have a bashing it's the best time to do it in the wake of those.

100% agree  I honestly do not think he will get a bashing but Andrew will no doubt do his best.  Still one of the best interviewers  if not the best.

[grrclark]

1 hour ago, panoma1 said:

But we should all make our choices based on priorities, fairness and what is right! Even the government! The fact is the government reneged on whatever you want to call it, contract, charter, agreement, promise.......The UK are reportedly the 5th richest country in the world, if they say they can’t afford to compensate these women they are lying! They have plenty of money available to pay it, they just choose to spend it elsewhere!

For example, how much is the foreign aid budget? How much money will the government have available from not having to pay contributions to the EU, how much does the government receive through tax and duty on fuel? How much money do they give Scotland, NI and Wales under the Barnet formula? How many billions £ have the various political party’s promised In things that benefit us, if we vote them into power in the upcoming general election? it doesn’t have to be paid from the education or the healthcare or the defence budget, that is not true, it’s just the sort of tactic the government would use to turn public opinion against and as a reason to refuse to compensate these women.

 

You’re right it doesn’t have to come from the budgets I suggested, it was just to give an indication of scale.

We are still running a small deficit so all the tax income available to the government is already spent.

So what dont they spend the equivalent of one years defence, or 60% of education or 30% of healthcare on?

The UK foreign aid budget is £14bn, so you’re just over a quarter of the way there. What else does the government not spend money on next year?

 

[panoma1]

16 minutes ago, grrclark said:

You’re right it doesn’t have to come from the budgets I suggested, it was just to give an indication of scale.

We are still running a small deficit so all the tax income available to the government is already spent.

So what dont they spend the equivalent of one years defence, or 60% of education or 30% of healthcare on?

The UK foreign aid budget is £14bn, so you’re just over a quarter of the way there. What else does the government not spend money on next year?

 

Dunno! The bribes they are promising the voters to buy votes?.......Oh! Silly me, of course they ain’t gonna honour most of them either! 😏

[discobob]

2 hours ago, Westward said:

If the women want equality across the board they must accept that they can't cherry pick which bits they want and which they don't and it's not always going to work in their favour. As I said, they've had plenty of notice as have the men whose pension age has also increased. Perhaps if successive governments had invested the NI contributions for the future instead of lumping it in with the tax take we'd all be better off.

I remember in the forces, this is the late 80's and early 90's - WRAC's signed to a contract that informed them that if they got pregnant they would have to leave the forces. Gave quite a few a cheap way out after meeting somebody. The law changed which was fair enough and should have been put in place going forward - however solicitors got onto it and then those that had left previously were getting nice payouts.....

 

Whereas if men wanted to leave, they needed to PVR which could be 18 months and possibly a few thousands pounds

[Dibble]

If you accept different retirement ages based on sex is fundamentally unfair............I'm going to change that..............if you believe women being able to retire before men is unfair you have to agree with the changes and not seek to benefit from a previous inequality.

I changed my view whilst typing that as you could argue if retirement with a pension is a right measured in years men ,with their shorter life expectancy, should be allowed to retire younger than women.

[oowee]

1 minute ago, Dibble said:

If you accept different retirement ages based on sex is fundamentally unfair............I'm going to change that..............if you believe women being able to retire before men is unfair you have to agree with the changes and not seek to benefit from a previous inequality.

I changed my view whilst typing that as you could argue if retirement with a pension is a right measured in years men ,with their shorter life expectancy, should be allowed to retire younger than women.

I made this point earlier. Government could use the average project life expectancy figure for men and women and a number of years that would be paid say 20 or so for each. 

[panoma1]

You don’t get gender equality by treating one gender inequitably!.....both genders should initially have received their pensions at 62 1/2....the increase in female pension age (formerly 60) could be paid for by the male pension age decrease (formerly 65)....then with proper notification, the pensionable age could be increased for both genders incrementally!

But no! The government decided instead to rush the whole thing through, purely to save money......and the WASPI women were just the  “collateral damage”

31 minutes ago, oowee said:

I made this point earlier. Government could use the average project life expectancy figure for men and women and a number of years that would be paid say 20 or so for each. 

This isn’t gender equality...........it’s age/gender discrimination based on projected life expectancy!.......Not at all PC eh?

Edited November 28, 2019 by panoma1

[oowee]

16 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

You don’t get gender equality by treating one gender inequitably!.....both genders should initially have received their pensions at 62 1/2....the increase in female pension age (formerly 60) could be paid for by the male pension age decrease (formerly 65)....then with proper notification, the pensionable age could be increased for both genders incrementally!

But no! The government decided instead to rush the whole thing through, purely to save money......and the WASPI women were just the  “collateral damage”

This isn’t gender equality...........it’s age/gender discrimination based on projected life expectancy!.......Not at all PC eh?

That's like saying men and women have to use the same loo.

What is unfair about it? Both sexes get treated the same. 

[grrclark]

33 minutes ago, oowee said:

That's like saying men and women have to use the same loo.

What is unfair about it? Both sexes get treated the same. 

That's what coming at us regrettably, but an entirely different subject.

 

My issue with the could have, should have type posts in this thread is that it is very easy to come up with the "it should have been like this" scenario after the event, if only we had the prescience to understand what comes next and to be able to forecast it perfectly.

Likewise with the "we should just pay it" posts, but when trying to work through the practicalities of what that actually means, i.e. what doesn't get paid in order to pay the WASPI women the argument goes back to emotional rhetoric and nothing else.

Politicians or civil servants are not imbued with magic and an ability to produce money from nowhere, they have to grapple with the same arithmetic as highlighted above.

So very easy to throw the "should have, could have" rocks when you don't have to find a solution.  The politics of protest are so very simple and easy.

 

[Dibble]

The retirement age has had to increase to balance the requirement for children to remain in education or training until the age of 18, otherwise the size of the workforce would have fallen.

moving one pension age up and one down then both up then up again is incredibly messy and would still have disadvantaged many. 

I accept that the constant changes in company car tax disadvantage me 2 years out of a 4 year lease you just have to roll with it. I don’t expect special treatment or sympathy .

Expecting Government to “compensate “ anyone who feels hard done by restricts the ability to govern.

as my kids would point out they will be paying a kings ransom to own a house and retiring at 70 on a contribution based pension........stop moaning Boomers

[Rim Fire]

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbbc.in%2F37HQjyd%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR01-Yi2ZClm7lm-4pxY2l1pqetOHGex5bp5QJgN6lKm7vqzdAtdCjB-u3I&h=AT0OKpqh_2gKA_yxVHArhkxHD-tzaL7cF8A_SjoCELNbzUG9w4wBYnuDpzLAgxc5fzPgvGXWIQhvTKsaPWKC6cjvzsnE-b-4Z5kjW1Nembo_xKw5QPshkb_xk4C4fvmMmacaUfIjXXRJOQX6EESGbaB6fzL9IlgJe-oDBXFH5oS_cpH_l0Wm61l72Ln6QONOD_UvenWAYDU7Qb__SfzvgX9crb7gYs3u2q5yfPDGbYQZ3aodRkqw4MdGPmB2jQMoWn6NcQ2KRNhFx7C28XO-cvy94sgjhsZEN8thoZkhIUOWfcRqILgBQSj9SbGb6MI9n1TdC6MUn8PPP4sJKPT9oMJzRdGbQo0TiIAbErU5gER0hvOOk0Q4jfsjGbQKDWxsb4aYGLqIHUMc-ojELHxVvEbPRTfuXv33sifPWSzd4oLOuQIRYQ0mUSgothJKrK_AUn1pvgpkRsxakABi_0IrsCL3Yg4_06jrKKLaGQcNMhcfynsdWu7AKySQkcNI-qr6SsQhQg8UNmrgaldpp_Gm3St5drcieGAB1JY1p75NIqCjWNtKxIGj9ADbQRrLy1axfjZf0cvcfkAdGVcLq1hFU_dQgyiL94lAb45LQJjAv31wpSRKoPQHPlggrD7-2EoSocxCskZIAASoh6OSXIcbK0I

[panoma1]

10 hours ago, oowee said:

That's like saying men and women have to use the same loo.

What is unfair about it? Both sexes get treated the same. 

No it’s not! It’s like saying men and women should be treated equally!

Treating everyone badly, and treating everyone well is treating everyone the same! Depriving one of something whilst giving it to another is inequitable!