| General Election Thread 17:46 - May 22 with 213097 views | loftboy |
This will be the first election that I have no idea who to vote for, will never vote Tory again after the lies during covid where my dad lost his life, don’t trust starmer, would never vote for a bunch of racists like reform , anyone give me a clue?
This post has been edited by an administrator |  |
| |  |
| General Election Thread on 22:21 - May 30 with 1996 views | 222gers |
| General Election Thread on 22:16 - May 30 by CiderwithRsie |
The meaning of the word "benefit" is not a matter of debate or philosophical discussion, it is a legal term defined in Acts of Parliament, for example (from the Social Security Act 1998, including subsequent amendments:)
In this Chapter “relevant benefit” F42... means any of the following, namely—
(a)benefit under Parts II to V of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
[F43(aa)universal credit;]
[F44(ab)state pension or a lump sum under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
[F45(ac)bereavement support payment under section 30 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
(b)a jobseeker’s allowance;
[F46(ba)an employment and support allowance;]
[F47(baa)personal independence payment;]
[F48(bb)state pension credit;]
[F49(bc)a loan under section 18 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;]
(c)income support;
F50(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F50(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)a social fund payment mentioned in section 138(1)(a) or (2) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(g)child benefit;
(h)such other benefit as may be prescribed." |
So what term was used for pensions pre 2014 I wonder ? And what caused the pension to have a different nomenclature ? |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 22:25 - May 30 with 1980 views | colinallcars |
| General Election Thread on 22:21 - May 30 by 222gers |
So what term was used for pensions pre 2014 I wonder ? And what caused the pension to have a different nomenclature ? |
My guess would be……call it a benefit and it could be subject to cuts. That said there is the Triple Lock in place. Puzzling. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 22:31 - May 30 with 1962 views | BucksRanger |
| General Election Thread on 22:25 - May 30 by colinallcars |
My guess would be……call it a benefit and it could be subject to cuts. That said there is the Triple Lock in place. Puzzling. |
The triple lock was suspended by Sunak for 2022/23 so you can't trust the Conservatives not to do that again. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 22:35 - May 30 with 1961 views | 222gers |
| General Election Thread on 22:25 - May 30 by colinallcars |
My guess would be……call it a benefit and it could be subject to cuts. That said there is the Triple Lock in place. Puzzling. |
Quick history lesson….when the old age pension, as it used to be called, was introduced in 1910 ( I was just a kid then ), it was called ninepence for fourpence which referred to the ratio of money paid in to money paid out.
Right, I've got tuppence left in me pocket, just up to the pub for 2 pints. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 23:20 - May 30 with 1892 views | DannyPaddox |
| General Election Thread on 13:17 - May 30 by SheffieldHoop |
Isn't this also partly a result of us just experiencing the wettest winter on record? Along with a booming population. More people = More sewage. |
We all have a quintessential post - and here’s yours - you’re literally a shît apologist. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 00:00 - May 31 with 1841 views | FredManRave |
| General Election Thread on 22:16 - May 30 by CiderwithRsie |
The meaning of the word "benefit" is not a matter of debate or philosophical discussion, it is a legal term defined in Acts of Parliament, for example (from the Social Security Act 1998, including subsequent amendments:)
In this Chapter “relevant benefit” F42... means any of the following, namely—
(a)benefit under Parts II to V of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
[F43(aa)universal credit;]
[F44(ab)state pension or a lump sum under Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
[F45(ac)bereavement support payment under section 30 of the Pensions Act 2014;]
(b)a jobseeker’s allowance;
[F46(ba)an employment and support allowance;]
[F47(baa)personal independence payment;]
[F48(bb)state pension credit;]
[F49(bc)a loan under section 18 of the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016;]
(c)income support;
F50(d). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
F50(e). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(f)a social fund payment mentioned in section 138(1)(a) or (2) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;
(g)child benefit;
(h)such other benefit as may be prescribed." |
Not 100% convinced that's correct, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. |  |
| |
| General Election Thread on 01:19 - May 31 with 1769 views | johncharles |
| General Election Thread on 20:51 - May 30 by BucksRanger |
You make it sound as if it's not worth getting the money back. I suppose their sentences are overly harsh too. |
Bollox, you know what I mean |  |
| Strong and stable my arse. |
| |
| General Election Thread on 03:44 - May 31 with 1716 views | SonofNorfolt |
Having just spent a while reading all the posts on this thread, many eloquent, salient comments and surprisingly non-aggressive statements on a subject matter that is, whether one likes it or not, is incredibly important to our everyday lives unless you're domiciled on a tax haven in St Kitts, I'm now telling it as it is.
If you believe that the Tories have delivered anything, even remotely fair to the majority of people in this country then you're wrong.
Can you honestly, in your heart of hearts, put an X in the box of your local Conservative candidate and believe that it's in your best interest?
Johnson, Truss, Sunak, really? Touch your forelock peasants and be happy with the defunding of all the privileges that make our lives even remotely bearable.
Starmer's Labour will win of course, barring a major national aneurism, more acceptable, not by much, soon to discover that victory comes with the realisation that not much can be changed for the better without gigantic borrowing from the American Empire, funded by the Chinese, built on sand.
Now for the part where I make more enemies, as if I care, because I have no more alcohol to hand without going down to the all night garage.
No Church, no Conservatives and no Fulham Broadway. Ever. The latter is actually far more important.
Someone kick Michael Gove, Toby Young and Nadine Dorries in the kunt as well..... |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| General Election Thread on 08:24 - May 31 with 1557 views | SydneyRs |
| General Election Thread on 03:44 - May 31 by SonofNorfolt |
Having just spent a while reading all the posts on this thread, many eloquent, salient comments and surprisingly non-aggressive statements on a subject matter that is, whether one likes it or not, is incredibly important to our everyday lives unless you're domiciled on a tax haven in St Kitts, I'm now telling it as it is.
If you believe that the Tories have delivered anything, even remotely fair to the majority of people in this country then you're wrong.
Can you honestly, in your heart of hearts, put an X in the box of your local Conservative candidate and believe that it's in your best interest?
Johnson, Truss, Sunak, really? Touch your forelock peasants and be happy with the defunding of all the privileges that make our lives even remotely bearable.
Starmer's Labour will win of course, barring a major national aneurism, more acceptable, not by much, soon to discover that victory comes with the realisation that not much can be changed for the better without gigantic borrowing from the American Empire, funded by the Chinese, built on sand.
Now for the part where I make more enemies, as if I care, because I have no more alcohol to hand without going down to the all night garage.
No Church, no Conservatives and no Fulham Broadway. Ever. The latter is actually far more important.
Someone kick Michael Gove, Toby Young and Nadine Dorries in the kunt as well..... |
Don't forget Braverman and Patel. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 09:03 - May 31 with 1469 views | Esox_Lucius |
| General Election Thread on 19:25 - May 30 by Watford_Ranger |
Pensions are officially a benefit and have been for some time. |
That was my point! Just because legislation was brought in to redefine the terminology does not mean that pensions aren't a paid for deferred salary. This was always a point in annual salary negotiations, that some of the company's profits would be used to fund the employers contribution, along with the employee, to provide for a pension upon retirement.
It is NOT a benefit no matter what the government says. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| General Election Thread on 09:29 - May 31 with 2447 views | dmm |
What worries me about pensions in the future is that statutory pension contributions are not put into a pension fund as such but simply spent by the present Government. This puts the ability of future Governments to pay pensions at risk because of potentially decreasing tax receipts.
And the UK state pensions are not particularly high in comparison to other European countries. Nations like Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus and others all pay out substantially higher amounts. |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 09:47 - May 31 with 2366 views | Watford_Ranger |
| General Election Thread on 09:29 - May 31 by dmm |
What worries me about pensions in the future is that statutory pension contributions are not put into a pension fund as such but simply spent by the present Government. This puts the ability of future Governments to pay pensions at risk because of potentially decreasing tax receipts.
And the UK state pensions are not particularly high in comparison to other European countries. Nations like Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cyprus and others all pay out substantially higher amounts. |
If I make it to that age I really doubt pensions will be a thing in 35-40 years. Probably scrapped under the guise of “putting more money back into your pocket”. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 10:03 - May 31 with 2320 views | JPC |
The thing with fraud is that we tend to focus on what the media tell us to focus on rather than the sleight of hand that those at the top table keep quiet.
I came across this real-life example recently and had never really considered it. My Son has significant learning difficulties and lives in assisted accommodation in Twickenham with other adults of similar abilities. There are full time carers supporting them. The accommodation and the carers are of course what our taxes go towards paying for, and I'm profoundly grateful - without that I have no idea what his life would look like.
These carers get paid about 23k a year. It's a pretty tough gig. They struggle to recruit. So they get Agency staff in to fill in the vacancies. These are paid exactly the same, yet are charged at 48k a year. Someone is pocketing 25k a year for absolutely no benefit. We're told that paying carers a small increase is unacceptable as it leads to wage inflation - but this is an industrial sized con.
Boils my piss - it really does [Post edited 31 May 12:00]
| | | |
| General Election Thread on 10:59 - May 31 with 2175 views | SheffieldHoop |
| General Election Thread on 10:03 - May 31 by JPC |
The thing with fraud is that we tend to focus on what the media tell us to focus on rather than the sleight of hand that those at the top table keep quiet.
I came across this real-life example recently and had never really considered it. My Son has significant learning difficulties and lives in assisted accommodation in Twickenham with other adults of similar abilities. There are full time carers supporting them. The accommodation and the carers are of course what our taxes go towards paying for, and I'm profoundly grateful - without that I have no idea what his life would look like.
These carers get paid about 23k a year. It's a pretty tough gig. They struggle to recruit. So they get Agency staff in to fill in the vacancies. These are paid exactly the same, yet are charged at 48k a year. Someone is pocketing 25k a year for absolutely no benefit. We're told that paying carers a small increase is unacceptable as it leads to wage inflation - but this is an industrial sized con.
Boils my piss - it really does [Post edited 31 May 12:00]
|
Bit more complicated than that
Any agency member of staff worth their salt will be offered a full-time permanent position fairly quickly, more security for them and cheaper for the employer. Some people prefer the flexibility of agency only. Some have to carefully manage their hours so as not to interfere with working tax credits.
You also need some element of agency/temporary staffing to cover absence, which since covid has stayed at remarkably high levels
They were actually doing quite well with reducing agency spend in the years prior to covid but as with many other sectors covid was used as an excuse and everything has gone back to shit
There is nothing actually stopping you from starting your own agency, I know people who have done it, it's harder than it looks [Post edited 31 May 11:14]
|  |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| General Election Thread on 11:07 - May 31 with 2159 views | SheffieldHoop |
| General Election Thread on 23:20 - May 30 by DannyPaddox |
We all have a quintessential post - and here’s yours - you’re literally a shît apologist. |
I'd rather be an apologist for bad weather than a Hamas apologist or a gender cult apologist, which we have our fair share of on here.
I've asked for more info - I'm fully aware that my echo chamber (We all have one) is telling me that the idea our toilets flush directly into the Thames is absurd. I've opened the manhole cover outside my house before and not much sign of the Thames down there.
We're saying there's been no investment in water infrastructure but we've literally in the last year or 2 completed the largest sewer in Europe. We all sit here pretending not to know why our infrastructure is overloaded, but knowing full well we're not having kids and importing 700k people a year. Anybody who points out the obvious truth is a pariah. | |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| General Election Thread on 11:59 - May 31 with 2094 views | JPC |
| General Election Thread on 10:59 - May 31 by SheffieldHoop |
Bit more complicated than that
Any agency member of staff worth their salt will be offered a full-time permanent position fairly quickly, more security for them and cheaper for the employer. Some people prefer the flexibility of agency only. Some have to carefully manage their hours so as not to interfere with working tax credits.
You also need some element of agency/temporary staffing to cover absence, which since covid has stayed at remarkably high levels
They were actually doing quite well with reducing agency spend in the years prior to covid but as with many other sectors covid was used as an excuse and everything has gone back to shit
There is nothing actually stopping you from starting your own agency, I know people who have done it, it's harder than it looks [Post edited 31 May 11:14]
|
Fine if that's how they use agency staff - that's really not the case here. I've spoken to a number of the carers and the managers and they all say the same thing. None of them want / can afford to be full time in what is a very demanding job. The agency staff are used full time - not as cover. Most of them are from overseas. paying full time staff a rate of pay that is fair and meaningful would actually reduce the cost - but no-one is incentivised to do this. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:06 - May 31 with 2050 views | SheffieldHoop |
| General Election Thread on 11:59 - May 31 by JPC |
Fine if that's how they use agency staff - that's really not the case here. I've spoken to a number of the carers and the managers and they all say the same thing. None of them want / can afford to be full time in what is a very demanding job. The agency staff are used full time - not as cover. Most of them are from overseas. paying full time staff a rate of pay that is fair and meaningful would actually reduce the cost - but no-one is incentivised to do this. |
Huh? None of the staff want or can afford to be full time, but they are using overseas agency workers on a full time basis to cover vacancy?
The full time agency workers should be made permanent to fill the vacancy. Simple. They evidently already have the right to work in the UK, so what's the problem? Whoever is managing the service has an incentive to make that happen because it's their service they are managing. If you are suggesting fraud is taking place, who are you suggesting is the beneficiary of that? The service manager or A.N.Other Tory party donor? | |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| General Election Thread on 12:38 - May 31 with 1951 views | dmm |
| General Election Thread on 11:07 - May 31 by SheffieldHoop |
I'd rather be an apologist for bad weather than a Hamas apologist or a gender cult apologist, which we have our fair share of on here.
I've asked for more info - I'm fully aware that my echo chamber (We all have one) is telling me that the idea our toilets flush directly into the Thames is absurd. I've opened the manhole cover outside my house before and not much sign of the Thames down there.
We're saying there's been no investment in water infrastructure but we've literally in the last year or 2 completed the largest sewer in Europe. We all sit here pretending not to know why our infrastructure is overloaded, but knowing full well we're not having kids and importing 700k people a year. Anybody who points out the obvious truth is a pariah. |
That bastion of left wing politics, the Evening Standard, yesterday reported sewage was discharged into London’s waterways for more than 12,000 hours over the last year. The mechanics of how that happened aren't too important. That it happened and continues to happen all over the country absolutely is. And, while this happens, multi million pound dividends are paid out to water company shareholders rather than invested in creating safe and clean water services.
Privatisation not immigration is to blame. Our water services must be brought back into public ownership. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:46 - May 31 with 1905 views | SheffieldHoop |
| General Election Thread on 12:38 - May 31 by dmm |
That bastion of left wing politics, the Evening Standard, yesterday reported sewage was discharged into London’s waterways for more than 12,000 hours over the last year. The mechanics of how that happened aren't too important. That it happened and continues to happen all over the country absolutely is. And, while this happens, multi million pound dividends are paid out to water company shareholders rather than invested in creating safe and clean water services.
Privatisation not immigration is to blame. Our water services must be brought back into public ownership. |
"The mechanics of how that happened aren't too important. That it happened and continues to happen all over the country absolutely is."
Doesn't this just sum up the current problem with the left? Detail is not important to you guys. Headlines & soundbites are. People are tired of it. We want details, not liars putting out Trumpesque "Trans women are women" soundbites that we all instinctively know are utter bullshit. | |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| General Election Thread on 12:55 - May 31 with 1875 views | ted_hendrix |
| General Election Thread on 12:38 - May 31 by dmm |
That bastion of left wing politics, the Evening Standard, yesterday reported sewage was discharged into London’s waterways for more than 12,000 hours over the last year. The mechanics of how that happened aren't too important. That it happened and continues to happen all over the country absolutely is. And, while this happens, multi million pound dividends are paid out to water company shareholders rather than invested in creating safe and clean water services.
Privatisation not immigration is to blame. Our water services must be brought back into public ownership. |
The UK’s largest water company Thames Water is scrambling to find extra cash, as it handed out millions of pounds worth of dividends to shareholders and bonuses to top bosses in recent years.
The stark update highlights the deepening financial woes for the firm which is sitting on a debt pile of £14.7 billion.
The stark update highlights the deepening financial woes for the firm which is sitting on a debt pile of £14.7 billion.
It has come under pressure from water regulator Ofwat to improve its financial performance amid mounting concerns over its future.
Despite the troubles, Thames Water revealed in December that it paid a £37.5 million dividend to a parent company.
When asked to explain the move by Ofwat, Thames said the money had been moved to help pay its debts.
In the year to the end of March 2023, it paid out about £45 million in dividends, and the previous two years it handed out a combined £53.9 million.
But the firm stresses that it has not paid a dividend to “external shareholders” for at least the past five years.
Thursday 28 March 2024. |  |
| My Father had a profound influence on me, he was a lunatic. |
| |
| General Election Thread on 12:57 - May 31 with 1860 views | dsw2509 |
I’m no great fan of Starmer but the Tories have to go. Labour it is. I don’t need to spell out the reasons in full, but how about these;
Inflicting Brexit and telling porkies on an epic scale.
They partied, people’s relatives died.
Use the Rwanda outrage as ludicrous alternative to a fair and well run asylum policy (with legal routes to enter the U.K. to address the small boats issue).
Hollowing out the public realm so that nothing works any more.
Pretending that climate change is someone else’s problem.
I could go on. Just do it and throw the rascals out!! | | | |
| General Election Thread on 12:57 - May 31 with 1860 views | dmm |
So the functional detail of how sewage is being discharged into rivers is more important than the fact that water companies are illegally polluting our waterways? Bizarre. As is your attempt to deflect this onto Trans issues. | | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:02 - May 31 with 1840 views | QPR_Jim |
| General Election Thread on 11:07 - May 31 by SheffieldHoop |
I'd rather be an apologist for bad weather than a Hamas apologist or a gender cult apologist, which we have our fair share of on here.
I've asked for more info - I'm fully aware that my echo chamber (We all have one) is telling me that the idea our toilets flush directly into the Thames is absurd. I've opened the manhole cover outside my house before and not much sign of the Thames down there.
We're saying there's been no investment in water infrastructure but we've literally in the last year or 2 completed the largest sewer in Europe. We all sit here pretending not to know why our infrastructure is overloaded, but knowing full well we're not having kids and importing 700k people a year. Anybody who points out the obvious truth is a pariah. |
Loads of new houses are getting built as well (housing some of those extra people) which put extra stain on the system, but they pay water rates so should expect for some of that money to be re-invested in the infrastructure. Instead billions of pounds flow out of the water companies and into the pockets of private individuals. Did they not know that they would need to increase their capacity, did they not think it was worth having a robust system that can deal with a few extra turds and some rain?
Thames Tideway is a great improvement but lets not pretend that it's not long overdue, it's replacing a 150 year old system. It also probably wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the EU rules around water pollution when the project started, if it was to be reviewed today I guess that the water companies would just lobby the government to change the standards.
My water company has sent me a marketing e-mail today to explain the difference between pollution and algal bloom, so I don't mistake the two when wondering why the waters brown. They weren't necessarily forthcoming in their communication that algal bloom is caused by excess nutrients in the water (normally feterliser or effluent). |  | | |
| General Election Thread on 13:06 - May 31 with 1792 views | SheffieldHoop |
| General Election Thread on 12:57 - May 31 by dmm |
So the functional detail of how sewage is being discharged into rivers is more important than the fact that water companies are illegally polluting our waterways? Bizarre. As is your attempt to deflect this onto Trans issues. |
Like saying we should stop doing autopsies on murder victims, the fact they are dead should be enough to prove there has been a murder. Bizarre.
We can all call each other names. I asked for more detail and nothing more than "It's happening" has been forthcoming. Even in the South (Where I regard the water quality as being: Fcking shit) our water quality is remarkably better than most other places on earth.
Also not deflecting anything onto "Trans issues" - I'm critiquing the left. [Post edited 31 May 13:25]
| |
| "Someone despises me. That's their problem." Marcus Aurelius |
| |
| General Election Thread on 13:08 - May 31 with 1794 views | Stainrod |
| General Election Thread on 14:54 - May 30 by SheffieldHoop |
Isn't this partly why Brexit was/is so important?
The fact they're still doing it after Brexit is why people like me argue Brexit still hasn't actually happened. |
Respectfully wrong on every count.
The EU wants to outlaw cherry-picking of tax jurisdictions. Brexit Britain doesn't feel strong enough to do so on its own (doubt a Labour govt would have the strength either).
People like you argue that Brexit still hasn't actually happened because the Brexit you all dreamed of was impossible and never will happen:
We can't have frictionless trade with the EU
We can't do without immigration because we have an ageing, unhealthy and under-educated population
We can't do a trade deal with America because they don't want one
We can't sell more to countries further away than Europe because leaving the EU doesn't bring us any closer to countries on the other side of the world
We can't turn Britain into a "Singapore-on-Thames" with flat tax rates, no safety net for the poor, no NHS free at the point of delivery - for the very simple reason that the British people don't want it. [Post edited 31 May 13:09]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
