Stive Pesley Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Just now, Van Wolfie said: The IFS aren't thrilled about it either.... These are the so-called Waspi women Women Against State Pension Inequality and Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies talked to BBC Radio 4's Today Programme about the plan which is costed at £58bn. "Let's hope it isn't more than that because that’s a very large sum of money indeed. "There are two increasing things about that - the sheer scale of it and it immediately breaks their promises they made in their manifesto just week to only borrow to invest so they would need even more than their £80bn of tax rises if they wanted to cover that. "The other thing is just a statement of priorities... They are not finding money to reverse the welfare cuts for genuinely poor people of working age, and of course, whilst some of this waspi women have suffered hardship… many of them are quite well off." If you're trying to look at the bright side though - at least any money that gets paid to the WASPI women would be largely spent in the economy, so it would give a decent boost to businesses. As opposed to say - the similar amount of money we have spent on fighting/bombing foreign countries over the past 30 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 36 minutes ago, maxjam said: if you limit discussion through fear of being called racist you will never reach answers, only create further division I disagree. You're not being stopped from saying (at length....on this forum....over and over) what you think about immigration. No one is limiting your views. Why are you so hung up on worrying about what others think of you? I don't think you're a racist, but if someone looks at all the wrongs in our country and concludes that the problem is purely one of immigration and culture, then they have to expect to be challenged. That's all it is. Not about limiting discussion, you can say what you like - and others are free to challenge it. If being challenged makes you want to not say it in the first place then really that's your problem not mine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 19 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: If you're trying to look at the bright side though - at least any money that gets paid to the WASPI women would be largely spent in the economy, so it would give a decent boost to businesses. As opposed to say - the similar amount of money we have spent on fighting/bombing foreign countries over the past 30 years. And if you choose to look on the bright side of that, then the defence industry is now worth £78bn a year and employs 375,000 people directly, in highly skilled & highly paid jobs - plus over 1 million indirectly. All feeding into the economy. Not bad value for money, that, in comparison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 24 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: If you're trying to look at the bright side though - at least any money that gets paid to the WASPI women would be largely spent in the economy, so it would give a decent boost to businesses. As opposed to say - the similar amount of money we have spent on fighting/bombing foreign countries over the past 30 years. Wasn't it Blair and Labour who wasted money on a War. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 8 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said: And if you choose to look on the bright side of that, then the defence industry is now worth £78bn a year and employs 375,000 people directly, in highly skilled & highly paid jobs - plus over 1 million indirectly. All feeding into the econoy. Not bad value for money, that, in comparison When you put it like that I guess the only difference is that the WASPI women don't indirectly slaughter millions of people in far away places. Hooray! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 2 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: I disagree. You're not being stopped from saying (at length....on this forum....over and over) what you think about immigration. No one is limiting your views. Why are you so hung up on worrying about what others think of you? I don't think you're a racist, but if someone looks at all the wrongs in our country and concludes that the problem is purely one of immigration and culture, then they have to expect to be challenged. That's all it is. Not about limiting discussion, you can say what you like - and others are free to challenge it. If being challenged makes you want to not say it in the first place then really that's your problem not mine Happy to be challenged and I answer every question if possible. If I get asked the same questions over and over you'll get the same replies over and over. No one is saying that immigration is the be all and end all, but it is a contributing factor that until Brexit and maybe a future Tory controlled immigration policy one that hasn't been addressed. I would argue that conversation, debate and therefore progress are being hindered by accusations of racism when open debate is needed. Sarah Champions sacking is a classic example of this; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/sajid-javid-says-jeremy-corbyn-wrong-to-dismiss-equalities-minister-over-sun-newspaper-article-on-a7897956.html 12 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: If being challenged makes you want to not say it in the first place then really that's your problem not mine Being challenged is one thing, being afraid that what you say might be taken as racist or bigotted is another. How many people are there on my side of the argument on here and do we have to defend ourselves constantly? How many people voted in the referendum that had never voted before? Its not my problem if people feel as though that daren't speak up, its everyone's. The mess we're in now is in part down to people being afraid to speak up despite having genuine concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 4 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: When you put it like that I guess the only difference is that the WASPI women don't indirectly slaughter millions of people in far away places. Hooray! 58 Billion and rising not in Labours original spending plans Who pays. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 50 minutes ago, maxjam said: Given that all Brexiteers are thick racists for trying to stem mainly white european immigration, it would be political suicide to try and stem mainly non-white immigration. Look at the Tories now, controlled immigration is one of their policies and they are being labelled hard right. I find it strange that we enter into an agreement with EU countries that grants us reciprocal rights to freedom of movement, which gets heavily criticised by pro Brexit supporters. But we don't address the non European immigration that (1) sees higher numbers come to the country and (2) doesn't have reciprocal rights. Personally I've not got such an issue with it, but I'm not the one raising immigration as an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gee SCREAMER !! Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 50 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said: The IFS aren't thrilled about it either.... These are the so-called Waspi women Women Against State Pension Inequality and Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies talked to BBC Radio 4's Today Programme about the plan which is costed at £58bn. "Let's hope it isn't more than that because that’s a very large sum of money indeed. "There are two increasing things about that - the sheer scale of it and it immediately breaks their promises they made in their manifesto just week to only borrow to invest so they would need even more than their £80bn of tax rises if they wanted to cover that. "The other thing is just a statement of priorities... They are not finding money to reverse the welfare cuts for genuinely poor people of working age, and of course, whilst some of this waspi women have suffered hardship… many of them are quite well off." I think we can safely assume that with a four day week and an additional burden of 58 billion on top , we will be working till 85 to get a state pension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 5 minutes ago, GboroRam said: I find it strange that we enter into an agreement with EU countries that grants us reciprocal rights to freedom of movement, which gets heavily criticised by pro Brexit supporters. But we don't address the non European immigration that (1) sees higher numbers come to the country and (2) doesn't have reciprocal rights. Personally I've not got such an issue with it, but I'm not the one raising immigration as an issue. I'd agree that the whole thing is very strange and needs to be looked at again critically and from an unbiased viewpoint. I personally don't really have any answers, just think we need a proper open debate so I can form some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfie Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 17 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: When you put it like that I guess the only difference is that the WASPI women don't indirectly slaughter millions of people in far away places. Hooray! I was merely countering your claim that "finding" £58bn and giving it to women (many of whom don't need it) was good value for money in comparison with defence spending. I notice you haven't given us your thoughts on this new promise and what the hell Labour are playing at, forgetting about it for their manifesto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 30 minutes ago, Curtains said: Wasn't it Blair and Labour who wasted money on a War. Yes. And PFI. And introducing the free market to the NHS/enabling privatisation. New Labour are the antithesis of much that the current leadership stand for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, Van Wolfie said: I was merely countering your claim that "finding" £58bn and giving it to women (many of whom don't need it) was good value for money in comparison with defence spending. I think we should find it by taking it from the extremely wealthy. All of whom don't need it. We robbed it from them in the first place. I see no reason why we shouldn't give it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stive Pesley Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, maxjam said: I personally don't really have any answers, just think we need a proper open debate so I can form some That's fair enough and I respect your honesty. I'm not against open debate - but an important question in a truly open debate is "who gets to set the boundaries of what is acceptable?" You must see people online agreeing with some of your thoughts - who then go on to take it a step to far and say something unequivocally racist - or at least deeply suspect? What then? I think your concern that too much policing of what is acceptable will mean some people dare not speak up - mirrors my concern that not enough policing means that some people will feel empowered to be openly bigoted with impunity. Neither is the right way to go - so what's the solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curtains Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, GboroRam said: Yes. And PFI. And introducing the free market to the NHS/enabling privatisation. New Labour are the antithesis of much that the current leadership stand for. Corbyn so far away from Blairs ethos right. Question how long does it take because of Blair’s Part privatization (PFI ) to change a light bulb at The Royal Derby and how much does it cost the NHS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 10 hours ago, Angry Ram said: Not really. Part ownership, help to buy. Little Angry has recently become a home owner, so it is possible even down sarf. He left school with nothing just a good work ethic. May I ask how much he earns? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 3 minutes ago, SchtivePesley said: - so what's the solution? For me it's to focus on the bigger issues that affect us all. Austerity. Spending. Taxation of the rich. Public services. Rebalance of capital. Stopping fighting over the crumbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GboroRam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 Just now, DarkFruitsRam7 said: May I ask how much he earns? Only £80k, less than 50% of the population ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxjam Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 1 minute ago, SchtivePesley said: That's fair enough and I respect your honesty. I'm not against open debate - but an important question in a truly open debate is "who gets to set the boundaries of what is acceptable?" Well given that Sarah Champion was sacked for essentially stating facts and Sajid Javid said the issue needs to be debated, it would be a good idea imo to start at the top. If people see politicians being sacked for speaking out it doesn't inspire the average person in the street to speak up. Then all you're left with are the Tommy Robinsons of the world - the debate is artificially skewed to one of racism because the vast majority don't want to risk their livelihoods and remain silent. Sticking with immigration the Tories are for controlling it, Labour are for free movement. How about an independent body do proper research into the pros and cons then parliament discuss it without fear of being sacked for pereived racism etc. We don't always have to be at polar opposite ends of the spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkFruitsRam7 Posted November 25, 2019 Share Posted November 25, 2019 7 minutes ago, GboroRam said: Only £80k, less than 50% of the population ?? Don't get me started on that Bamford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.