By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Unbelievable that most still don't understand; - why this country came to have such a huge deficit - who was in power at the time - how the unprecedented size of the deficit guaranteed that the national debt was going to go up, - That the challenge was to eliminate that deficit not cut the national debt (as to cut the national debt would have required eliminating the deficit in a year or two...which would have taken either: a) An economic miracle the world has never seen the like of before or b) much more dramatic cuts to state spending....and you lot have complained about each cut and declared it unnecessary all along the way as the government instead opted to narrow the deficit over a decade rather than make those dramatic cuts.
F*cking imbeciles. Unlike ECB though I still defend your right to vote despite your ignorance.
Why this country came to have a huge deficit ?
A world financial crash caused by Lehman brothers and the sub Prime mortgage crash in the USA
The city of London might have handled it better if Thatcher had not deregulated it
A world financial crash caused by Lehman brothers and the sub Prime mortgage crash in the USA
The city of London might have handled it better if Thatcher had not deregulated it
Hope this helps your obvious ignorance
You ARE right of course. There are still many people (many Tory front liners are still trotting out the lie because they know many people will actually listen to them) who blame little old Labour in the UK for the WORLD WIDE banking crash.
They believe it just because they want to believe it not because it's the truth. Strange.
EU ruled pensions are the same category as pay and therefore subject to equality rules.
This led to the 1995 pension act, which ruled that female state pension ages will increase from 2010 to eventually be equal at 65 by 2020. So everyone has had 20+ years notice.
Since then the rate of increase has accelerated and the state pension age has increased for everyone. The last age 65 state pension was a year ago.
The waspi women have no case for taking it back to 60, their only valid argument is for the accelerated increases that brought the equalization date forward from 2020.
You ARE right of course. There are still many people (many Tory front liners are still trotting out the lie because they know many people will actually listen to them) who blame little old Labour in the UK for the WORLD WIDE banking crash.
They believe it just because they want to believe it not because it's the truth. Strange.
You clearly don't understand what happened.
The Labour Party chose to bail out the banks. They chose to do it with very few strings attached. The Labour Party, got that? The Labour Party.
The fact that we were more exposed than other countries was compounded by the fact that the Labour Party had already been running a permanent deficit when this country was supposedly booming. What Keynes said was that when the economy is booming you run a surplus and put money by for a rainy day, so that when you suffer an economic shock/depression you can spend that money on investing in and supporting the struggling economy.
The Labour party go more for the economics of Karl Marx though, ie. spend what the f*ck you want, we'll get it from the "rich"...how that ends, unchecked, is people up against the wall facing firing squads or working in the gulags.
None because they know we'd nuke them into oblivion.
Therefore the deterrent works.
If we were attacked with nuclear weapons then our allies would reply in kind. We don't need them. We would all be dead in any scenario if we have them or not.
The Labour Party chose to bail out the banks. They chose to do it with very few strings attached. The Labour Party, got that? The Labour Party.
The fact that we were more exposed than other countries was compounded by the fact that the Labour Party had already been running a permanent deficit when this country was supposedly booming. What Keynes said was that when the economy is booming you run a surplus and put money by for a rainy day, so that when you suffer an economic shock/depression you can spend that money on investing in and supporting the struggling economy.
The Labour party go more for the economics of Karl Marx though, ie. spend what the f*ck you want, we'll get it from the "rich"...how that ends, unchecked, is people up against the wall facing firing squads or working in the gulags.
Your anger is getting tiresome and a tad worrying.
What about all the men who no longer get their pensions at 65 will corbyn compensate them?
It seems equality for women only applies if it is to their benefit.
Why should women get their pension at 60 and men get theirs at 65. Women also live 2 years longer than men so get extra 7 years pension than men. This is despite men having to work and pay NI contributions for an extra 5 years.
Does Jeremy have any views on how labour will fun, borrow the extra £54 billion it is going to cost.
You have absolutely no understanding of what this issue is all about do you?
EU ruled pensions are the same category as pay and therefore subject to equality rules.
This led to the 1995 pension act, which ruled that female state pension ages will increase from 2010 to eventually be equal at 65 by 2020. So everyone has had 20+ years notice.
Since then the rate of increase has accelerated and the state pension age has increased for everyone. The last age 65 state pension was a year ago.
The waspi women have no case for taking it back to 60, their only valid argument is for the accelerated increases that brought the equalization date forward from 2020.
"WASPI Campaign Ask WHAT ARE WE CAMPAIGNING FOR? The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA (State Pension Age) to 65, the same as men’s. WASPI agrees with equalisation, but does not agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented — with little or no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. The campaign started with ordinary women who in 2015 got together via Facebook and decided to fight this injustice."
Their argument for little or no notice over the 95 pension act is completely groundless. I have sympathy over the accelerated equalisation from 2011 which brought forward equalisation to 2018, but equalisation had already stated in 2010 so they cant say they didn't know about it. There is a potential argument over those who lost out between 2018-2020 but over everything else they received the same notification about increases in SPA as men.
Indeed. With Swinson and Davey nailing their colours to the mast of supporting a minority Tory Govt only, they've disenfranchised a lot of people. That'll likely help Labour in their heartlands.
We can all do what we want in Swansea West anyway. It doesn't matter. The carpet bagging donkey with the red rosette will get in. I shall be voting for Plaid, partly due to how useless the pan-Britain parties are, partly because each of them has alienated me in some fundamental way but mainly because this election has pissed me off more than any other in terms of how forgotten Wales has been, and that was already at a low bar. As the SNP and DUP have shown, the only way Westminster takes note of the provinces is if they have a strong representation.
Gower is the only constituency in Swansea where there'll be a fight. although you'd hope that absolute horror the Tories put up will put paid to their chances, especially in the likes of Gorseinon which always makes me laugh is part of the constituency. Neath could be interesting too, from a red/green perspective. Rest of us can put our feet up, get the beers chilled for election night and watch it all turn to crap.
"WASPI Campaign Ask WHAT ARE WE CAMPAIGNING FOR? The 1995 Conservative Government’s Pension Act included plans to increase women’s SPA (State Pension Age) to 65, the same as men’s. WASPI agrees with equalisation, but does not agree with the unfair way the changes were implemented — with little or no personal notice (1995/2011 Pension Acts), faster than promised (2011 Pension Act), and no time to make alternative plans. Retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences. The campaign started with ordinary women who in 2015 got together via Facebook and decided to fight this injustice."
Their argument for little or no notice over the 95 pension act is completely groundless. I have sympathy over the accelerated equalisation from 2011 which brought forward equalisation to 2018, but equalisation had already stated in 2010 so they cant say they didn't know about it. There is a potential argument over those who lost out between 2018-2020 but over everything else they received the same notification about increases in SPA as men.
[Post edited 25 Nov 2019 16:07]
The major part of the argument (re compensation) is the 1995 notification.
You describe it as completely groundless and yet the government papers admitted that aspect in court.
Women received letters up to 16 years after the 1995 change. Many only found out when they were already retired. They’d made decisions based on the understanding that they would retire at 60. Some have had divorce settlements that have taken them receiving state pensions from the age of 60 into account. It was effectively a retrospective change to their working conditions notified after the event.
Most were affected too late to do anything about it due to the initial lack of notification. Which was an admitted deliberate strategy.
That’s the whole crux of their argument.
The funny thing is that all parties agree that it was an injustice. Johnson said so when he was campaigning for the leadership. The issue is whether the country can afford to compensate the people involved.
They didn’t receive the same notifications as men as men were unaffected by the fundamental change.
The major part of the argument (re compensation) is the 1995 notification.
You describe it as completely groundless and yet the government papers admitted that aspect in court.
Women received letters up to 16 years after the 1995 change. Many only found out when they were already retired. They’d made decisions based on the understanding that they would retire at 60. Some have had divorce settlements that have taken them receiving state pensions from the age of 60 into account. It was effectively a retrospective change to their working conditions notified after the event.
Most were affected too late to do anything about it due to the initial lack of notification. Which was an admitted deliberate strategy.
That’s the whole crux of their argument.
The funny thing is that all parties agree that it was an injustice. Johnson said so when he was campaigning for the leadership. The issue is whether the country can afford to compensate the people involved.
They didn’t receive the same notifications as men as men were unaffected by the fundamental change.
In 1995 my state pension age was 65, now it is 67.
I haven't been written to by the government to tell me this. Should I be entitled to compensation?.
The 2010-2020 equalization was in the public domain
If these women were planning their retirement without sending off a BR19, they can't blame anyone else.
I have already given you industries that would benefit from such huge investments.
Surely you understand if you invest in the physical infrastructure, training, and have positive action in terms of the movement of jobs out of high cost London and to the Regions and Nations of the rest of the UK then change can happen.
Repeat after me, nobody is going to threaten the UK with nuclear weapons. Just like they don't threaten Norway, Denmark, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Italy, Greece, Sweden, Etc
I think that most if not all those countries are NATO members so are protected by The USA FRENCH and UK deterrent.
Ireland is neutral so not sure what it would do if the EU ever gets it's european army.
A world financial crash caused by Lehman brothers and the sub Prime mortgage crash in the USA
The city of London might have handled it better if Thatcher had not deregulated it
Hope this helps your obvious ignorance
Why did labour not regulate when they were in power between 1997 and 2010? Labour were getting the country into debt before the banking crisis despite Brown saying he had ended boom and bust.
Indeed. With Swinson and Davey nailing their colours to the mast of supporting a minority Tory Govt only, they've disenfranchised a lot of people. That'll likely help Labour in their heartlands.
We can all do what we want in Swansea West anyway. It doesn't matter. The carpet bagging donkey with the red rosette will get in. I shall be voting for Plaid, partly due to how useless the pan-Britain parties are, partly because each of them has alienated me in some fundamental way but mainly because this election has pissed me off more than any other in terms of how forgotten Wales has been, and that was already at a low bar. As the SNP and DUP have shown, the only way Westminster takes note of the provinces is if they have a strong representation.
Gower is the only constituency in Swansea where there'll be a fight. although you'd hope that absolute horror the Tories put up will put paid to their chances, especially in the likes of Gorseinon which always makes me laugh is part of the constituency. Neath could be interesting too, from a red/green perspective. Rest of us can put our feet up, get the beers chilled for election night and watch it all turn to crap.
I'm in a similar situation here in Cynon Valley Ux. I personally know both the Labour and PC candidates (Beth Winter and Geraint Benny). Both very nice people, young and very passionate about the Cynon Valley.
As usual, Labour will romp it especially as Anne Clwyd has stood down. PC will get my vote although it will make little difference.
IFS say this is a relatively well off part of the population, the sensible policy would have to provided a hardship fund. Borrowing billions to give to relatively well off people does not make sense.
A good decision. These women have lost out on a serious amount of money because they were born sometimes days and weeks after the goalposts were changes by those assholes in blue.
They wanted equality, give it to them and they say we'll have that thanks but we still want our pensions early!!!
It's discriminative against men!
Labour will bankrupt the country IF they ever get in, which they won't!
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
