LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

john80

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

obviously I think the triple lock is bowlocks but increasing the value of pensions is very easy to defend

I feel we've switched positions here - i thought you were against fiscal incontinence?

If we accept there is going to be a disastrous pensions problem down the road, and I think we all do, (though judging by the popularity of pension discussions on here, one for a different generation I suspect), I don't really understand why this stuff is acceptable?

It is also substantially more costly than pretty much any other benefit other than free healthcare - which at least is applicable to everyone throughout their entire life.

I am obviously against the triple lock but am amazed to find you and the Guardian standing shoulder to shoulder with me when we have some the lowest state pensions in the OECD.

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

Iassume those people can bring their dependents so I think he is arguing to accept all 38 million.

I feel the absence of waiting lists for his council for family houses might be distorting his views

rjsterry

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

elbowloh

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

Indeed. They're not cultural norms.

Am I right in saying that the majority of the country did not/does not support the Taliban?

rjsterry

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

Indeed. They're not cultural norms.

Am I right in saying that the majority of the country did not/does not support the Taliban?

I think that is self evident.

Just for comparison with that 20,000 figure, between 1968 and 1978, more than 20,000 displaced East African Asians settled in Leicester alone.

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

obviously I think the triple lock is bowlocks but increasing the value of pensions is very easy to defend

I feel we've switched positions here - i thought you were against fiscal incontinence?

If we accept there is going to be a disastrous pensions problem down the road, and I think we all do, (though judging by the popularity of pension discussions on here, one for a different generation I suspect), I don't really understand why this stuff is acceptable?

It is also substantially more costly than pretty much any other benefit other than free healthcare - which at least is applicable to everyone throughout their entire life.

I am obviously against the triple lock but am amazed to find you and the Guardian standing shoulder to shoulder with me when we have some the lowest state pensions in the OECD.

Does this include healthcare costs? (in all seriousness, if it does then I am very surprised and we live in a third world country). I suspect in nations where you have to pay for your healthcare, that is a significant outlay.

In terms of why the guardian is against it (it isn't necessarily) but I would suggest it is more indicative of the new left/right that I have been going on about since December 2019.

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

surrey_commuter said:

rick_chasey said:

I'd like to know what people who are not working are doing to deserve a pay rise almost 4x inflation.

I guess the answer is voting for this current gov't.

obviously I think the triple lock is bowlocks but increasing the value of pensions is very easy to defend

I feel we've switched positions here - i thought you were against fiscal incontinence?

If we accept there is going to be a disastrous pensions problem down the road, and I think we all do, (though judging by the popularity of pension discussions on here, one for a different generation I suspect), I don't really understand why this stuff is acceptable?

It is also substantially more costly than pretty much any other benefit other than free healthcare - which at least is applicable to everyone throughout their entire life.

I am obviously against the triple lock but am amazed to find you and the Guardian standing shoulder to shoulder with me when we have some the lowest state pensions in the OECD.

Does this include healthcare costs? (in all seriousness, if it does then I am very surprised and we live in a third world country). I suspect in nations where you have to pay for your healthcare, that is a significant outlay.

In terms of why the guardian is against it (it isn't necessarily) but I would suggest it is more indicative of the new left/right that I have been going on about since December 2019.

here you go - apparently UK State pension is a disgrace
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/dec/05/oecd-uk-has-lowest-state-pension-of-any-developed-country

almost as if they their editorial policy is to disagree with anything the Tories do

rick_chasey

Yes I don't think those figures include healthcare so it's not a fully like-for-like comparison.

I guess what I object to, SC, is a lot of discussion amongst Tories and their supporters about where to cut and they cut everything else to the bone but the single biggest expenditure - which is not even means tested, so a load of people who don't need it get it - is the pension and it's just a big fat sop to buy votes and nothing else.

There is no other expenditure that is not absolutely paired down to the bare minimum, to the point where anything that relies on state funding is underfunded - and yet pensioners get rise after rise after rise.

pblakeney

The State Pension is a basic for a lot of people to live on.
Would you be happy living on £137.60/week? A lot of people have to.
Some women don't even receive that due to a lack of working credit.
The whole means testing has already been covered.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

The State Pension is a basic for a lot of people to live on.
Would you be happy living on £137.60/week? A lot of people have to.
Some women don't even receive that due to a lack of working credit.
The whole means testing has already been covered.

I'm not sure you're understanding my argument so I don't know what to reply to you with.

I'll go with "yes, the pension isn't much, nor is pretty much any benefit from the government so why the exception for rises for pensioners"?

surrey_commuter

rick_chasey said:

Yes I don't think those figures include healthcare so it's not a fully like-for-like comparison.

I guess what I object to, SC, is a lot of discussion amongst Tories and their supporters about where to cut and they cut everything else to the bone but the single biggest expenditure - which is not even means tested, so a load of people who don't need it get it - is the pension and it's just a big fat sop to buy votes and nothing else.

There is no other expenditure that is not absolutely paired down to the bare minimum, to the point where anything that relies on state funding is underfunded - and yet pensioners get rise after rise after rise.

I don't think state pension is too high.

I would clawback money by adding NI to income tax, giving pensioners the same allowance as working people, make bus passes and winter fuel allowances taxable.

pblakeney

Cos some of the population need the rises.

rjsterry

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

Sure. As do some on UC (£324.84/month), HB (goes straight to the landlord), Disability benefit (variable), Carer's allowance (£67.60/week for 35 hrs or more), etc. They on the other hand are not protected by any triple lock because we like to pretend that the state pension is isn't really a benefit.

Jezyboy

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

pblakeney

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

Sure. As do some on UC (£324.84/month), HB (goes straight to the landlord), Disability benefit (variable), Carer's allowance (£67.60/week for 35 hrs or more), etc. They on the other hand are not protected by any triple lock because we like to pretend that the state pension is isn't really a benefit.

Some of us do think of the state pension as a benefit.
Perception is probably the main divider.

pblakeney

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

Sure, but the triple lock going up to 8% is not based on inflation, it is due to wage increases, which is going to non-pensioners.
IMO this is a concern as rising wages will drive up company costs which will drive up consumer costs which will drive up inflation. Bumpy ride ahead for all.

rick_chasey

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

Sure, but the triple lock going up to 8% is not based on inflation, it is due to wage increases, which is going to non-pensioners.
IMO this is a concern as rising wages will drive up company costs which will drive up consumer costs which will drive up inflation. Bumpy ride ahead for all.

Inflation is expected to move from 2.5% to 4%.

It seems like with corona and brexit the economy is running up against the supply bumpers long before we get to 2019 levels of demand.


There is also the argument that incomes also tanked aggressively in the pandemic and so the 8% rises are still catching up from that.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

Sure. As do some on UC (£324.84/month), HB (goes straight to the landlord), Disability benefit (variable), Carer's allowance (£67.60/week for 35 hrs or more), etc. They on the other hand are not protected by any triple lock because we like to pretend that the state pension is isn't really a benefit.

As the flat rate pension is anything but flat rate I know it is not cut and dried but upon reaching state retirement age does somebody on UC get a massive increase?

rick_chasey

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

Sure. As do some on UC (£324.84/month), HB (goes straight to the landlord), Disability benefit (variable), Carer's allowance (£67.60/week for 35 hrs or more), etc. They on the other hand are not protected by any triple lock because we like to pretend that the state pension is isn't really a benefit.

As the flat rate pension is anything but flat rate I know it is not cut and dried but upon reaching state retirement age does somebody on UC get a massive increase?

Basic UC allowance:
Single and 25 or over: £411.51 per month
In a couple and either of you are 25 or over: £596.58 per month

Basic state pension is £179.60 per week which is roughly £780 per month.

So yes.

rjsterry

Interesting to watch the Conservative party generally being disgusted with the leadership of the, um, Conservative party. Do we start a sweepstake on when they replace him and his idiots with Sunak and... erm?

pblakeney

Oops.

pblakeney

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

Sure. As do some on UC (£324.84/month), HB (goes straight to the landlord), Disability benefit (variable), Carer's allowance (£67.60/week for 35 hrs or more), etc. They on the other hand are not protected by any triple lock because we like to pretend that the state pension is isn't really a benefit.

As the flat rate pension is anything but flat rate I know it is not cut and dried but upon reaching state retirement age does somebody on UC get a massive increase?

Not straightforward. If getting Wages and UC then not compared when combined.
If purely on UC then you'd think so, but you have to have made enough contributions first. Insufficient contributions, no pension. I assume there will be other benefits for a basic living.
I have no idea of what benefits are available, probably at my cost.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

Sure, but the triple lock going up to 8% is not based on inflation, it is due to wage increases, which is going to non-pensioners.
IMO this is a concern as rising wages will drive up company costs which will drive up consumer costs which will drive up inflation. Bumpy ride ahead for all.

The wages are rising compared to last year, when they declined, due to the general asterisk on all figures.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

Sure, but the triple lock going up to 8% is not based on inflation, it is due to wage increases, which is going to non-pensioners.
IMO this is a concern as rising wages will drive up company costs which will drive up consumer costs which will drive up inflation. Bumpy ride ahead for all.

The wages are rising compared to last year, when they declined, due to the general asterisk on all figures.

Yeah, I still think inflation will be higher than expected, or hoped for.

surrey_commuter

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

Jezyboy said:

pblakeney said:

Cos some of the population need the rises.

That surely applies equally to non pensioners?

Sure, but the triple lock going up to 8% is not based on inflation, it is due to wage increases, which is going to non-pensioners.
IMO this is a concern as rising wages will drive up company costs which will drive up consumer costs which will drive up inflation. Bumpy ride ahead for all.

The wages are rising compared to last year, when they declined, due to the general asterisk on all figures.

Yeah, I still think inflation will be higher than expected, or hoped for.

Current inflation projections look alright

john80

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

Indeed. They're not cultural norms.

Am I right in saying that the majority of the country did not/does not support the Taliban?

If that is the case can you explain why they put up the fight more akin to the losing side in our last general election than those who thought they were losing some pretty significant liberties.

john80

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

It is the cultural norm prior to the last 20 years to follow an extreme version of Sharia law. This is a fact and is going to become a reality for afghans. Infidelity in marriage is a death sentence under their sentencing code. Those clinging to planes might have been better grabbing a weapon and seeing how many Taliban they could take out before their inevitable demise.

rjsterry

john80 said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

It is the cultural norm prior to the last 20 years to follow an extreme version of Sharia law. This is a fact and is going to become a reality for afghans. Infidelity in marriage is a death sentence under their sentencing code. Those clinging to planes might have been better grabbing a weapon and seeing how many Taliban they could take out before their inevitable demise.

You might want to check how accurate that 'fact' is.

rjsterry

john80 said:

elbowloh said:

rjsterry said:

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

Didn't see this new argument from john80 in favour of accepting half the population of Afghanistan coming.

I am merely pointing out the fallacy that we can protect people from other cultures and traditions that we find abhorrent. For sure we in the West have some ability to stop big one of events such as ethnic cleansing but usually a fair few die before we get there and we are not very good at solving this outside of the continent of Europe. What we can't do is save people from cultural norms such as people being forced to wear a Burkha or get stoned to death. It is for the people of Afghanistan to sort this out and they have had 20 years of support to kick this into touch and have failed miserably. If we were scoring the population of Afghanistan on their efforts what would we be giving them.

The idea that people are clinging to the undercarriage of a moving plane to escape 'cultural norms' is quite a bit of mental gymnastics.

Indeed. They're not cultural norms.

Am I right in saying that the majority of the country did not/does not support the Taliban?

If that is the case can you explain why they put up the fight more akin to the losing side in our last general election than those who thought they were losing some pretty significant liberties.

Would that include the 45,000 Afghans who have died fighting the Taliban in the last 7 years?