Performance of the new government

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Performance of the new government

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 8 of 38 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

silvertop Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.20pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger People should benefit from being successful and responsible by providing for their retirement. State pension should not just be for people who are the opposite. Equality must work all ways. Everyone should be entitled to state pension. The NHS obviously needs a load taken off of it. Private health care should be made more affordable. There still needs to be better A and E. The private sector can't save you if you get blue lighted. I'm not against freedom of movement in Europe with limited visas but training our own population to fill vital jobs should be a priority. Damn, we're closer than I thought. On pensions, you need to have paid your stamps for 35 qualifying years. Claiming the dole can count as NI credit and will qualify that year. So dossing about for a lifetime may still land you a state pension. I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement. A+E and the emergency services should continue to be state funded. We do not want hospital bureaucrats rifling through people's purses to find their insurance cards to determine whether they are going to plug them into resus. This is not the USA. It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.20pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

People should benefit from being successful and responsible by providing for their retirement.
State pension should not just be for people who are the opposite. Equality must work all ways. Everyone should be entitled to state pension.

The NHS obviously needs a load taken off of it. Private health care should be made more affordable.
There still needs to be better A and E. The private sector can't save you if you get blue lighted.

I'm not against freedom of movement in Europe with limited visas but training our own population to fill vital jobs should be a priority.

Damn, we're closer than I thought.

On pensions, you need to have paid your stamps for 35 qualifying years. Claiming the dole can count as NI credit and will qualify that year. So dossing about for a lifetime may still land you a state pension.

I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement.

A+E and the emergency services should continue to be state funded. We do not want hospital bureaucrats rifling through people's purses to find their insurance cards to determine whether they are going to plug them into resus. This is not the USA.

It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.21pm
Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines somebody who has 2 houses, no dependents, no debts, a brand new car every 3 years and a dog, ...when and if I get a second house, I'll let you know. There is another reason why pensions are important; namely the older generation probably spend their money in the UK, thereby generating wealth and tax for the economy, Sure, they may holiday abroad but since leaving the EU it has presumably become more difficult to move abroad, so the bulk of the money may well stay here in some form or other. That is an argument for paying us all more money. Now that is socialism!
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.21pm

Originally posted by Behind Enemy Lines

somebody who has 2 houses, no dependents, no debts, a brand new car every 3 years and a dog,
...when and if I get a second house, I'll let you know.
There is another reason why pensions are important; namely the older generation probably spend their money in the UK, thereby generating wealth and tax for the economy, Sure, they may holiday abroad but since leaving the EU it has presumably become more difficult to move abroad, so the bulk of the money may well stay here in some form or other.

That is an argument for paying us all more money. Now that is socialism!

Alert a moderator to this post

JRW2 Dulwich 08 Jul 24 12.30pm
Originally posted by palace99 I'm not his biggest fan, but it is clear we now have a grown up running the country. Clearly the Mail and the Telegraph will never like him, but they let the likes of Boris and Sunak literally get away with murder. Evidence? I think you should be more careful with your choice of words.
Alert a moderator to this post

JRW2

Dulwich 08 Jul 24 12.30pm

Originally posted by palace99

I'm not his biggest fan, but it is clear we now have a grown up running the country. Clearly the Mail and the Telegraph will never like him, but they let the likes of Boris and Sunak literally get away with murder.

Evidence? I think you should be more careful with your choice of words.

Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines Sussex 08 Jul 24 12.33pm
Originally posted by silvertop Damn, we're closer than I thought. On pensions, you need to have paid your stamps for 35 qualifying years. Claiming the dole can count as NI credit and will qualify that year. So dossing about for a lifetime may still land you a state pension. I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement. A+E and the emergency services should continue to be state funded. We do not want hospital bureaucrats rifling through people's purses to find their insurance cards to determine whether they are going to plug them into resus. This is not the USA. It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role. We definitely do not want the USA system; it is horrendous. The NHS should remain but it is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service. hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.
Alert a moderator to this post

Behind Enemy Lines

Sussex 08 Jul 24 12.33pm

Send a Private Message to Behind Enemy Lines

Originally posted by silvertop

Damn, we're closer than I thought.

I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement.

It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role.

We definitely do not want the USA system; it is horrendous. The NHS should remain but it is the National Health Service, not the International Health Service.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 08 Jul 24 12.36pm
Originally posted by silvertop Damn, we're closer than I thought. On pensions, you need to have paid your stamps for 35 qualifying years. Claiming the dole can count as NI credit and will qualify that year. So dossing about for a lifetime may still land you a state pension. I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement. A+E and the emergency services should continue to be state funded. We do not want hospital bureaucrats rifling through people's purses to find their insurance cards to determine whether they are going to plug them into resus. This is not the USA. It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role. Err...again your "understanding" is incorrect. It's 35 years of NI contributions for someone who potentially has a "full working life" in the UK, but the number of years is scaled back for someone who arrives in the UK later in life. Furthermore a 'stamp' hasn't existed since the 1960s. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 08 Jul 24 12.36pm

Originally posted by silvertop

Damn, we're closer than I thought.

I understood the minimum qualifying years was designed to stop them pesky foreigners coming over here and claiming our benefits. Something else on which I suspect we have agreement.

It is where they go after A+E and the op. It is the elective and out patient stuff where private funding needs to take more of a role.

Err...again your "understanding" is incorrect. It's 35 years of NI contributions for someone who potentially has a "full working life" in the UK, but the number of years is scaled back for someone who arrives in the UK later in life. Furthermore a 'stamp' hasn't existed since the 1960s.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20 Croydon 08 Jul 24 12.37pm
'Prison reform experts hail role for shoe repair CEO James Timpson'. The new prisons minister will not find it easy dealing with his inheritance but he employs ex-prisoners himself and has spent years in the field of rehabilitation. This is the first crisis of many in the trail of damage left by the tories and from day one it has received attention. The whole transfer of power has been done very well, we can do some things well it seems.
Alert a moderator to this post

steeleye20

Croydon 08 Jul 24 12.37pm

'Prison reform experts hail role for shoe repair CEO James Timpson'.

The new prisons minister will not find it easy dealing with his inheritance but he employs ex-prisoners himself and has spent years in the field of rehabilitation.

This is the first crisis of many in the trail of damage left by the tories and from day one it has received attention.

The whole transfer of power has been done very well, we can do some things well it seems.

Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.46pm
Originally posted by YT Err...again your "understanding" is incorrect. It's 35 years of NI contributions for someone who potentially has a "full working life" in the UK, but the number of years is scaled back for someone who arrives in the UK later in life. Furthermore a 'stamp' hasn't existed since the 1960s. I know that, but it is still used as a comedic euphemism for qualifying year (like calling the US "the Colonies" or FBI agents "G-men" ) . If you are going to attack me, at least do so on the point I am making rather than on technical side points that do not have a material impact on what I am saying. Edited by silvertop (08 Jul 2024 12.47pm) Edited by silvertop (08 Jul 2024 12.47pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 08 Jul 24 12.46pm

Originally posted by YT

I know that, but it is still used as a comedic euphemism for qualifying year (like calling the US "the Colonies" or FBI agents "G-men" ) .

If you are going to attack me, at least do so on the point I am making rather than on technical side points that do not have a material impact on what I am saying.

Edited by silvertop (08 Jul 2024 12.47pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger Ware 08 Jul 24 1.49pm
first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea. The trouble is, everyone 'lives to their means', and you shouldn't be expected to live to a vastly lower means just because you have retired. As State pensions are based on your NI Contributions, the amount of which are in most cases not enough to retire on solely, and should be supplemented where possible so you are not in a position to have to downgrade your life. As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement. From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea. It's all about where the line is drawn. They'll be plenty of people who could be seen to be on 'higher income' have probably factored in and rely upon their projected state pension amount. If they suddenly remove it based on some arbitrary line drawn in the Sand, it could ruin Peoples retirement plans and piss a lot of people off in the process. Which in itself means that it has to begin by introducing means testing 40 years ahead of time, so those affected are those with the time to counter it by planning better. "It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"
Alert a moderator to this post

CrazyBadger

Ware 08 Jul 24 1.49pm

first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea.

The trouble is, everyone 'lives to their means', and you shouldn't be expected to live to a vastly lower means just because you have retired. As State pensions are based on your NI Contributions, the amount of which are in most cases not enough to retire on solely, and should be supplemented where possible so you are not in a position to have to downgrade your life.

As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement.

From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea.

It's all about where the line is drawn. They'll be plenty of people who could be seen to be on 'higher income' have probably factored in and rely upon their projected state pension amount. If they suddenly remove it based on some arbitrary line drawn in the Sand, it could ruin Peoples retirement plans and piss a lot of people off in the process. Which in itself means that it has to begin by introducing means testing 40 years ahead of time, so those affected are those with the time to counter it by planning better.

"It was a Team effort, I guess it took all players working together to lose this one"

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 09 Jul 24 12.14am
Emily Thornberry unceremoniously dumped by Starmer. I am conflicted on this, on one hand I wanted her to have a role where her arrogance and stupidity would get a good airing on TV. On the other, Starmer has shown a degree of sense in dumping her from higher office. Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.
Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen

Hong Kong 09 Jul 24 12.14am

Emily Thornberry unceremoniously dumped by Starmer.

I am conflicted on this, on one hand I wanted her to have a role where her arrogance and stupidity would get a good airing on TV.

On the other, Starmer has shown a degree of sense in dumping her from higher office.

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle 09 Jul 24 5.34am
My first instinct would be that if they want to introduce means testing for pension qualification they will start ( as a way of getting the process introduced with minimum of fuss)by using an income / savings / property portfolio base line to establish / confirm full eligibility which seems reasonable to most people (with a sliding scale) & factor it in a couple years from now to give people enough time to mentally adjust to the prospect - Once its introduced then its just the thin end of the wedge & the parameters for qualification / sliding scale will be tightened on a semi regular basis. Originally posted by CrazyBadger first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea. The trouble is, everyone 'lives to their means', and you shouldn't be expected to live to a vastly lower means just because you have retired. As State pensions are based on your NI Contributions, the amount of which are in most cases not enough to retire on solely, and should be supplemented where possible so you are not in a position to have to downgrade your life. As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement. From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea. It's all about where the line is drawn. They'll be plenty of people who could be seen to be on 'higher income' have probably factored in and rely upon their projected state pension amount. If they suddenly remove it based on some arbitrary line drawn in the Sand, it could ruin Peoples retirement plans and piss a lot of people off in the process. Which in itself means that it has to begin by introducing means testing 40 years ahead of time, so those affected are those with the time to counter it by planning better.
Alert a moderator to this post

Dubai Eagle

09 Jul 24 5.34am

My first instinct would be that if they want to introduce means testing for pension qualification they will start ( as a way of getting the process introduced with minimum of fuss)by using an income / savings / property portfolio base line to establish / confirm full eligibility which seems reasonable to most people (with a sliding scale) & factor it in a couple years from now to give people enough time to mentally adjust to the prospect -

Once its introduced then its just the thin end of the wedge & the parameters for qualification / sliding scale will be tightened on a semi regular basis.

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea.

As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement.

From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea.

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 09 Jul 24 9.30am
Originally posted by HKOwen Emily Thornberry unceremoniously dumped by Starmer. I am conflicted on this, on one hand I wanted her to have a role where her arrogance and stupidity would get a good airing on TV. On the other, Starmer has shown a degree of sense in dumping her from higher office. Emily was confused why she did not get a role in government but my understanding was that this was due to austerity. Civil Servants pointed out that the biscuit budget would quadruple if she was in the cabinet. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 09 Jul 24 9.30am

Originally posted by HKOwen

Emily Thornberry unceremoniously dumped by Starmer.

I am conflicted on this, on one hand I wanted her to have a role where her arrogance and stupidity would get a good airing on TV.

On the other, Starmer has shown a degree of sense in dumping her from higher office.

Emily was confused why she did not get a role in government but my understanding was that this was due to austerity.

Civil Servants pointed out that the biscuit budget would quadruple if she was in the cabinet.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 09 Jul 24 9.49am
Originally posted by CrazyBadger first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea. The trouble is, everyone 'lives to their means', and you shouldn't be expected to live to a vastly lower means just because you have retired. As State pensions are based on your NI Contributions, the amount of which are in most cases not enough to retire on solely, and should be supplemented where possible so you are not in a position to have to downgrade your life. As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement. From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea. It's all about where the line is drawn. They'll be plenty of people who could be seen to be on 'higher income' have probably factored in and rely upon their projected state pension amount. If they suddenly remove it based on some arbitrary line drawn in the Sand, it could ruin Peoples retirement plans and piss a lot of people off in the process. Which in itself means that it has to begin by introducing means testing 40 years ahead of time, so those affected are those with the time to counter it by planning better. I'm not against means testing if it's strictly kept to someone's means.....However, hasn't this been looked into before as a policy...it probably costs more to administer than the savings made. People can talk about means testing for pensions but essentially we have to look at what the result is going to be.....if it isn't done carefully and we don't get mission creep....because mission creep is usually the way. I tend to find that the most vocal for this kind of thing are those people who don't have to worry about it. If you did this we are going to get an awful lot and I mean an awful lot of pensioner poverty. Most of these people can't really work, are at degrees of infirmity, have various medical or mental issues related to age and don't have families that help for various reasons (in many cases down to their own choices). Would government really put itself into a situation going to reduce their incomes?....Like Greece a few years back? Difficult to believe so....or is it? Unaffected people seem so enslaved to media messaging. People were worried about losing granny to covid and cheered on while the government spent 400 billion over two years just in case someone croaked who could have been saved. Well, if we are going to be sticking a lot of old elderly people into a situation where they aren't eating because they need to heat their home....s*** is going to get real very quick. These people would die a lot sooner than what the threat of covid gave them. There are structural problems that have been built up over many decades. I would need a lot of convincing on this. Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jul 2024 9.50am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

09 Jul 24 9.49am

Originally posted by CrazyBadger

first Instincts is that this seems like a terrible Idea.

As you earn more, you are expected to save more for retirement so the more you earn less and less the State pension makes a difference to your retirement.

From that angle, means testing seems a reasonable Idea.

I'm not against means testing if it's strictly kept to someone's means.....However, hasn't this been looked into before as a policy...it probably costs more to administer than the savings made.

People can talk about means testing for pensions but essentially we have to look at what the result is going to be.....if it isn't done carefully and we don't get mission creep....because mission creep is usually the way.

I tend to find that the most vocal for this kind of thing are those people who don't have to worry about it.

If you did this we are going to get an awful lot and I mean an awful lot of pensioner poverty.

Most of these people can't really work, are at degrees of infirmity, have various medical or mental issues related to age and don't have families that help for various reasons (in many cases down to their own choices).

Would government really put itself into a situation going to reduce their incomes?....Like Greece a few years back?

Difficult to believe so....or is it? Unaffected people seem so enslaved to media messaging.

People were worried about losing granny to covid and cheered on while the government spent 400 billion over two years just in case someone croaked who could have been saved.

Well, if we are going to be sticking a lot of old elderly people into a situation where they aren't eating because they need to heat their home....s*** is going to get real very quick.

These people would die a lot sooner than what the threat of covid gave them.

There are structural problems that have been built up over many decades. I would need a lot of convincing on this.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jul 2024 9.50am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 8 of 38 < 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Performance of the new government

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors