Andrew Neil and Corben interview.

[panoma1]

10 hours ago, grrclark said:

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.

 

It wasn’t my job and it’s above my pay grade to make these decisions, and I wasn’t asked! But it doesn’t stop me having and expressing an opinion! Be it prior to, or after the event!....but for information, I placed my objections on record, in writing, to the DWP prior to the implementation of the government's decision!

We all struggle with decisions, including financial, every day, Politicians and civil servants are elected/employed to make these decisions correctly, and not leave tens of thousands of a particular and specific group of citizens unfairly out of pocket! That is unfair and inequitable! I suspect the real reason the decision was made and implemented as was, was to save money by raising the pensionable age.......it wasn’t about equality!

As I’ve already stated, the government have plenty of money, and if they need more, they borrow £ Billions to fund their giveaways, bribes and “projects”, for example, HS2! Which many feel is an horrendously expensive white elephant!.....this is how they choose to spend the countries money!

[WestonSalop]

On 27/11/2019 at 16:24, Mungler said:

If I had £1 for every time a labour politician in this election run up said let’s be clear, I’m clear or we’re clear, and then went on to say something irrelevant or totally unclear, well I wouldn’t have to go to work again.

The one that increasingly gets on my tits is when a politician starts a response with "Look!...."  Obviously been coached by some media guru to say it and it sounds stupidly arrogant. *******, every one of em.

[Westward]

17 hours ago, panoma1 said:

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.

You're right at least that you're not a contract lawyer. No government promised or contracted anything in respect of pensions or pension age. And no government "offered" a retirement age to either women or men. Once upon a time someone, somewhere, identified the ages at which men and women would reach pension age and it was passed by parliament. Thereafter it was simply an assumption or expectation by the public that pension age would stay the same.

There are numerous ways in which my wife and I have missed out on the welfare gravy train, particularly when raising children and struggling to pay for everything for years out of one salary, and even after she returned to work, but times change and there are always winners and losers. We happened to be losers as parents compared to today when the political parties compete to provide ever increasing benefits to parents, but despite various Labour governments trying to destroy enterprise, we had better opportunities to build equity.

Frankly I have no great sympathy whatsoever for the WASPI women; as I said, there are winners and losers. They had years of notice as to what was coming and, as is the modern way, they think it's all someone else's fault and they expect to be compensated by the taxpayer.

[oowee]

2 hours ago, panoma1 said:

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! 
 

 

And in the case suggested everyone gets the same treatment based on life expectancy. The current arrangement where the retirement age is the same benefits women. Not that we can do much about it. The argument the Waspi women (had to look that up 🙂 ) make is what men could make when there retirement age moved to 67 from 65. Or could have made when the definition of full contribution changed (my bug bear as I am subject to both). We just have to suck it up and in my case hope it does not change again over the next 10 years. 

[Vince Green]

I see Boris is being criticised for not appearing on a CH4 debate about climate change. Despite climate change not being an election issue. So they replaced him with with a block of melting ice, allegedly from the polar ice cap. It appears to me from that, the tone of the debate had already been decided in advance and he was right not to fall for it.

[SpringDon]

I was interested in that as well. When did they decide that gove couldn’t appear as they had to order the etched or sculpted block of ice? Also, I should have thought that the environment secretary would have some relevant thing to say on the climate.

Edited November 29, 2019 by SpringDon

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, Westward said:

You're right at least that you're not a contract lawyer. No government promised or contracted anything in respect of pensions or pension age. And no government "offered" a retirement age to either women or men. Once upon a time someone, somewhere, identified the ages at which men and women would reach pension age and it was passed by parliament. Thereafter it was simply an assumption or expectation by the public that pension age would stay the same.

There are numerous ways in which my wife and I have missed out on the welfare gravy train, particularly when raising children and struggling to pay for everything for years out of one salary, and even after she returned to work, but times change and there are always winners and losers. We happened to be losers as parents compared to today when the political parties compete to provide ever increasing benefits to parents, but despite various Labour governments trying to destroy enterprise, we had better opportunities to build equity.

Frankly I have no great sympathy whatsoever for the WASPI women; as I said, there are winners and losers. They had years of notice as to what was coming and, as is the modern way, they think it's all someone else's fault and they expect to be compensated by the taxpayer.

I don’t understand your logic! You say “no government promised anything in respect of pensions and pension age” and that “no government offered a retirement age” then you say “it was passed by Parliament”....once something is passed by Parliament (as the state pension age for men and women of 65 and 60 respectively was) it is the governments job to enact it!

I have not suggested they can’t change it, but changing it in the way the government did (including without issuing proper statutory notice!) has resulted in a particular section of society being disadvantaged and treated inequitably! That is what the WASPI women are fighting to overturn!
 

I think you would probably have more sympathy for others, if it were you that has been denied upwards of £30,000 plus, and forced to work extra years for the privilege?

[Gordon R]

Quote

I see Boris is being criticised for not appearing on a CH4 debate about climate change. Despite climate change not being an election issue. So they replaced him with with a block of melting ice, allegedly from the polar ice cap. It appears to me from that, the tone of the debate had already been decided in advance and he was right not to fall for it.

There is an arrogance about the media, where they demand that any party leader has to be interviewed by Andrew Neil or only the party leader can appear on an environmental debate. Why not add a further qualification that the participants needed to be an MP and standing in the election? This would have kicked out wee Jimmy Krankie.

[Westward]

36 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

I think you would probably have more sympathy for others, if it were you that has been denied upwards of £30,000 plus, and forced to work extra years for the privilege?

It's not about whether or not I have sympathy. Have you any idea how complicated it would be to work out what each individual has had "stolen" as you put it? There are so many variables and permutations it will take years and years before any sort of refunds can even start let alone be completed  - and then everyone will complain about the amount - and so it will go on and on and on.

Instead of listening to the propaganda, try looking it up, along with how much the state pension people actually receive. No one should have been taken by surprised and virtually no one has lost out by £30, 000 plus or anywhere close to that amount.

The reality of life is that when changes are made to a government mechanism involving taxation or benefits there are always those who miss out through some timing or financial anomaly and it's nonsense to single out one group just because they make more noise. As I've already said, I've lost out massively by paying NI for at least 14 years more than I needed to at the point when I qualified for my state pension but of course NI is just an extension of income tax and it's deducted from everyone on PAYE. And these days pensions are just another taxpayer funded state benefit.

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Westward said:

It's not about whether or not I have sympathy. Have you any idea how complicated it would be to work out what each individual has had "stolen" as you put it? There are so many variables and permutations it will take years and years before any sort of refunds can even start let alone be completed  - and then everyone will complain about the amount - and so it will go on and on and on.

Instead of listening to the propaganda, try looking it up, along with how much the state pension people actually receive. No one should have been taken by surprised and virtually no one has lost out by £30, 000 plus or anywhere close to that amount.

The reality of life is that when changes are made to a government mechanism involving taxation or benefits there are always those who miss out through some timing or financial anomaly and it's nonsense to single out one group just because they make more noise. As I've already said, I've lost out massively by paying NI for at least 14 years more than I needed to at the point when I qualified for my state pension but of course NI is just an extension of income tax and it's deducted from everyone on PAYE. And these days pensions are just another taxpayer funded state benefit.

Don’t think I used the word “stolen”? And because something is complicated, it is no excuse for not doing it! Brexit, we have found is complicated, but that is no reason (it’s undemocratic!) not to do it!

Old basic rate pension of £129.20 (not at the new higher rate!) per week, times 52 weeks in a year = £6718.40 times five years = total £33592.00.

The recipient of a full pension has paid for it themselves! by the contributing the required rate of national insurance over the required number of qualifying years into the system during a lifetime of employment......so it isn’t really a taxpayer funded state benefit, although the government has designated it so!

 

[Dibble]

 

3 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I think you would probably have more sympathy for others, if it were you that has been denied upwards of £30,000 plus, and forced to work extra years for the privilege?

I have been "denied"  pension and will have to work years extra before retirement, I intend to take  it on the chin (i should say like a man) and realise  that certain pension expectations are unsustainable. As my kids would say Suck it up Boomer!

[panoma1]

27 minutes ago, Dibble said:

 

I have been "denied"  pension and will have to work years extra before retirement, I intend to take  it on the chin (i should say like a man) and realise  that certain pension expectations are unsustainable. As my kids would say Suck it up Boomer!

Some people surrender to injustice, some people fight injustice...Some people can afford to “suck it up” some can’t! We’re all different, as are our individual circumstances!