The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

Who will you be voting for?

  • Tory

    Votes: 38 9.9%

  • Diet Tory (Labour)

    Votes: 132 34.3%

  • Tory Zero (Greens)

    Votes: 44 11.4%

  • Extra Tory with lemon (UKIP)

    Votes: 40 10.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 9 2.3%

  • Other

    Votes: 31 8.1%

  • Cheese on toast

    Votes: 91 23.6%
  • Total voters
    385
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joey66 said:
So if you were born in 1956, Hard Cack? - I did not read this in their 2010 election manifesto if it had been in I wonder how many women many would have voted for that policy
Do you know the maximum contributions of National insurance has gone from 30 years to 35 years also!
If you think that's fair it obviously does not effect your family, as I stated its an I all right Jack society the coalition have created, by the way no future government will change this now as its been implemented , Labour did outline their pension age changes never as severe as this above!
Also just before this major announcement on raising the pension and contributions in Government they got the DWP to send out letters to buy up the NI contributions so that most people could get a full pansion - oh then the nasty Tories - 12 months after raked in the monies, and moved the goal post, leaving millions short - they are the nasty party!
Click to expand...

Pretty much yes. The equalisation of the state pension was talked about years and years before it was bought in in 2007. Nothing to do with the Tories at all.

But whatever. It is obviously their fault.
 

evilwebby said:
The landscape of British politics has changed so much since the good old days of Thatcher and Kinnock. I'm looking at all the projections and trying to make sense of exactly what has happened in Scotland.. anyone care to enlighten me (fron a grunt's eye view)?
Click to expand...

Its all about the rise of the Forth Reich fella. The ScottishNationalistzerPartie. Racists through and through, the lot of them. They only look out for themselves and they're going to hold the rest of the UK to ransom. Or so some would have you believe.

The truth is they are benefiting from sticking to principles whilst others have jumped into bed with the enemy. They're capitalising on a renewed interest in politics and the electorate understanding that democracy works - The establishment's worst nightmare.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Lets be honest here though, you don't lose a state pension, you simply get paid it at a later date. We have to remember that when the state pension was initiated, life expectancy was just 65, so very few would actually have lived to claim it. Now, life expectancy is 77 for men and 81 for women. It makes perfect sense for the state retirement age to change to reflect that.
Click to expand...
Where was it in their manifesto answer that in 2010?????? - if they were so keen on Tax dodgers/avoiders we could have a Welfare state!
IF women have paid into there stamp they have lost out to age discrimination on how can we save the most money lets computer it oh born in 1951 gets us the loads of cash back economist my backside, if it was you how would you feel? born in 1951 or on a sliding scale to 1955 an extra ten years to entitlement! really that's fair - is not!
You claim you are 35 so if does not effect me I am alright Jack!
You defend the Tories - are you rich yourself? I am well off, but hate inequality for socialist views!
 

Joey66 said:
Where was it in their manifesto answer that in 2010 - if they were so keen on Tax dodgers/avoiders we could have a Welfare state!
IF women have paid into there stamp they have lost out to age discrimination on how can we save the most money lets computer it oh born in 1951 gets us the loads of cash back economist my backside, if it was you how would you feel? born in 1951 0r on a sliding scale to 1955 an extra ten years to entitlement! really that's fair - is not!
Click to expand...

Not really sure what you are on about mate. The original consultation for equalising the state pension was in something like 2001. It came into law in 2007 in The Pension Act, along with tons of other stuff, some of which still hasnt come into force.

Yeah, some women had to wait up to 5 years to claim their Basic State Pension, which wasnt liked by those it affected. Certainly none of the ones I spoke to!

But it was under Blair/Brown that the legislation was created.
 
Joey66 said:
Where was it in their manifesto answer that in 2010?????? - if they were so keen on Tax dodgers/avoiders we could have a Welfare state!
IF women have paid into there stamp they have lost out to age discrimination on how can we save the most money lets computer it oh born in 1951 gets us the loads of cash back economist my backside, if it was you how would you feel? born in 1951 or on a sliding scale to 1955 an extra ten years to entitlement! really that's fair - is not!
You claim you are 35 so if does not effect me I am alright Jack!
You defend the Tories - are you rich yourself? I am well off, but hate inequality for socialist views!
Click to expand...

I've no idea if it's in their manifesto, or indeed any other parties manifesto, I'm just saying what is right. You can see from the link below how much of government spending currently goes on this relatively small proportion of the population.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ney-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

The demographics of Britain suggest that the retired population is growing much faster than the working population. Indeed, if any party clamps down on immigration then this shift is only going to accelerate. Whereas when the state pension was designed, there were around 6 working people for each retiree, now that ratio is around 3, with predictions that it will fall below 2 by 2040.

You mention the 'I'm Alright Jack' mentality, and it's really this that's stopping any change to reflect the current environment, because no one (understandably) wants to defer their own retirement. It does need to happen though, I'm just not sure any government will have the scruples to do it to the extent it's needed.

To put it into perspective, if Britain wanted to return the worker/retiree ratio to what it was when the state pension was created, the retirement age would need to rise to roughly 75.
 
And the turnout at elections amongst older voters is much higher than say, the under 25s. Politicians will meddle with pensions and retirement ages at their peril.
 
roydo said:
Not really sure what you are on about mate. The original consultation for equalising the state pension was in something like 2001. It came into law in 2007 in The Pension Act, along with tons of other stuff, some of which still hasnt come into force.

Yeah, some women had to wait up to 5 years to claim their Basic State Pension, which wasnt liked by those it affected. Certainly none of the ones I spoke to!

But it was under Blair/Brown that the legislation was created.
Click to expand...
Labour were going to alter the age of entitlement but the Tories fetched that age well forwards, it was not in their 2010 manifesto, of that date ie 1951 born in so the computer says no pension for that age group after writing to them asking them to buy up maximum pension a big CON!
They will not say were the 12 billion of welfare cuts are coming from! No wonder!
 

roydo said:
Not really sure what you are on about mate. The original consultation for equalising the state pension was in something like 2001. It came into law in 2007 in The Pension Act, along with tons of other stuff, some of which still hasnt come into force.

Yeah, some women had to wait up to 5 years to claim their Basic State Pension, which wasnt liked by those it affected. Certainly none of the ones I spoke to!

But it was under Blair/Brown that the legislation was created.
Click to expand...
Really they had a big campain to get it gradated they had to fight for that so by birth rite you lose your entitlement, They picked the age to save the most money after taking monies to get a maximum pension for some women, not only do the didle them out of that they the raise the entitlement to 30 years it is now raised to 35 yes we are living longer , but not everyone who lives long her can work their trade unless you are a rich banker - I wonder if they altered MP's pensions?
roydo said:
Pretty much yes. The equalisation of the state pension was talked about years and years before it was bought in in 2007. Nothing to do with the Tories at all.

But whatever. It is obviously their fault.
Click to expand...
utter rubbish the labour proposals were never going to be 1951 where you would lose out!
Watch this space I bet if the Nasty Tories get in it will rise again!
 
[QUOTE="Bruce Wayne, post: 3510150, member: 53"]I've no idea if it's in their manifesto, or indeed any other parties manifesto, I'm just saying what is right. You can see from the link below how much of government spending currently goes on this relatively small proportion of the population.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/p...ney-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

The demographics of Britain suggest that the retired population is growing much faster than the working population. Indeed, if any party clamps down on immigration then this shift is only going to accelerate. Whereas when the state pension was designed, there were around 6 working people for each retiree, now that ratio is around 3, with predictions that it will fall below 2 by 2040.

You mention the 'I'm Alright Jack' mentality, and it's really this that's stopping any change to reflect the current environment, because no one (understandably) wants to defer their own retirement. It does need to happen though, I'm just not sure any government will have the scruples to do it to the extent it's needed.

To put it into perspective, if Britain wanted to return the worker/retiree ratio to what it was when the state pension was created, the retirement age would need to rise to roughly 75.[/QUOTE]
 
So why if Old age pension takes up 75% of welfare do they attack the sick, and disabled in a massive cost to private firms like ATOS they have packed in and IDS has fetched in a more scandalous firm from the USA with an awful record of financial accounts!?

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/maximus-are-the-new-atos-destroy-maximus/
The company has a history of ending lawsuits against it in the USA by making out-of-court settlements costing millions of dollars, with the most notable plaintiffs being the US government in a case involving falsified Medicaid claims, and the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in a case involving disability discrimination.

Claimants of sickness and disability benefits in the UK are deeply distressed that their government should be insensitive enough to hire such a firm
 
Last edited:
Joey66 said:
So why if Old age pension takes up 75% of welfare do they attack the sick, and disabled in a massive cost to private firms like ATOS they have packed in and IDS has fetched in a more scandalous firm from the USA with an awful record of financial accounts!?

https://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2014/10/29/maximus-are-the-new-atos-destroy-maximus/
Click to expand...

Because, as has been mentioned above, the elderly tend to vote a lot more than any other age group. No political party really has the courage to take them on, which is why even the small changes to retirement age have been so difficult to achieve.
 
Bruce Wayne said:
Because, as has been mentioned above, the elderly tend to vote a lot more than any other age group. No political party really has the courage to take them on, which is why even the small changes to retirement age have been so difficult to achieve.
Click to expand...
difficult they conned people into adding years to their state pension, and then announced the change i 12 months later how was that con difficult?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register

Shop

Back
Top