Think your username sums it up
Lets also not forget that this deal has the potential of destabilising the peace deal in N. Ireland !
Poll: Exit Poll: UK General Election 2017 - Results discussion and OcUK Exit Poll - Closing 8th July
- Thread starter JohnnyG
- Start date
- Status
Do share then, or are you talking about the State Pension? Because that wasn't the discussion.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 1,726
So when is the queen's speech vote? Don't suppose there is any chance of a few Tories themselves voting it down and saving us a billion
Caporegime
- Joined
- 11 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 32,224
- Location
- Leafy Cheshire
1bn is small potatoes vs what Labour was willing to spend to win votes.
Triple lock is since 2010 has costed £6b a year and everyone who it effects can vote, only 18 year olds (and to a lesser extent >18s) can vote so... thats a pretty poor attack tbh.
So it is worse to bribe 1-5m people where the education would hopefully provide wealth or tens of millions of oldies where their pension is nothing but a massive drain?
Oh my, now unfortunately Labour decided that it would also keep the third lock which is a bit disappoint, but so does the DUP.
This countries leadership is ******* disgustingly pointless.
Well its not though if you factor in the triple lock pensions and winter fuel payments. Its several more millions.
Plus, with May determined to have a hard brexit, thats another £100 billion there.
Labours spending plans may have been ambitious and unrealistic but the Tories are around double to triple the costs.
At least that would benefit a larger proportion of the nation rather than a disproportionately represented few.
hang on - which party are you claiming was going to maintain the triple lock here?
Here comes the defence force.
I edited it in, but that doesnt mean that the Tories get away with it, i mean no one let Labour get away with 2008 even though it was barely their fault.
But wasn't the Maybot going to remove it?
Well she isnt anymore is she.
So we should ignore Maxwell and the £400Mil costs?
Ignore all the issues between Maxwell and 2005 when the PPF started: https://www.lovemoney.com/news/22/pension-scandal-worse-than-maxwell
Ignore the fact that major regulation changes are being proposed, presumably over a non issue?
Assume that PPF will fund 100% of all BHS and Tata pensions and that the cost to the tax payers (of yet more scandals in the sector) will in fact be zero this time?
Ignore the wider scandals such as equitable life and government stealth tax?
And i'll ignore (honest) financial advice from my missus, who really doesn't agree with your position, perhaps not on that one
Yes, we should ignore Maxwell, as legislation and regulation has since been put in place. As the article says. The proposed new legislation was to make that even stronger. Oh, and by the way, the current system still provides protection and governance right to this very day: https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pensions-regulator-reaches-74m-settlement-db-scheme-liabilities/
At a zero cost to the taxpayer, a point you keep failing to acknowledge. I'm surprised your wife hasn't corrected you on that one yet. Then again, around 2 million people work in financial services in the UK - being part of that number doesn't automatically mean that you know anything about pensions
nope, but your comment was about the election no? - comparing campaign promises... young voters & tuition fees vs older voters... which, before your edit, seemed rather flawed as Comrade Corbyn was seemingly making promises to both and the Maybot was actively shooting herself in the foot by removing stuff from old voters (heating allowance, social care, triple lock etc..)
- Status