Jump to content

We are the Compassionate Party...


Grecian
 Share

Recommended Posts

And that has made my blood run cold.

I remember hearing on the News Quiz many years ago, an anagram of Virginia Bottomley,  sums up, IDS for me!

What is this world going to be like........... IF........

Trump becomes President, or worse, Cruz AND IDS is PM? And that is not even mentioning the real dangerous looney tunes, the likes of daesh or Kim Jong-un etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote user="Rabbie"] 

My advice is that if you disagree with the  OP's views then help to keep this forum alive by putting up an intelligent rebuttal of his opinion and the debate can continue. It rather defeats the object of a forum if every controversial opinion is to be deleted.

[/quote]

Nobody asked for the subject to be deleted, so stop jumping the gun.

Some people offered the view that this forum is not the place to start a

political rant, and that is how the original post came over. Of course

if you would like this forum to degenerate into a carbon copy of a

similar one; where someone actually suggested a politician be

assassinated because they didn't like his point of view that is your

choice, but as contributors are in short supply it could be something to

think about, as extremes of any kind should I feel be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 If sticking in pins would have worked, I would probably have been doing it for quite some time.

Too many of the things IDS has done have really upset me and personally found an affront to decency in a society where in general public, is so 'giving'.

I do hope that the man sinks without trace. I'd rather 'Doris' became PM to be honest.

nb  I didn't watch Sport Relief last night, but was idly zapping through the channels and saw Michael Crawford taking on his role as 'Frank' and he called Boris, 'Doris' and it just amused me no end. I shall forever think of Boris as 'Doris'!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IDS's excuses are pathetic.

Please sir, please sir, It wasn't me, it was the big boys in number 10 and 11 made me do it.

And then this morning one of his sycophantic followers came on to explain the background to the resignation and all he could say was "well if we were not in the EU we would have plenty of money to look after the handicapped."

So now we know clearly what was behind the resignation and if this is the level of honesty from Brexit politicians that we can expect, god help the British electorate.

I am almost wondering whether IDS (sounds like something you get cured at a private clinic - I've got a bad dose of IDS can you fix it please) engineered the whole thing by putting forward the cuts to invalidity benefits as his department's cost cutting in the knowledge that they would be so unpopular that he could then pretend he had nothing to do with it.

Or maybe I have been watching too much "Spin".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="NickP"]

Nobody asked for the subject to be deleted, so stop jumping the gun.

Some people offered the view that this forum is not the place to start a

political rant, and that is how the original post came over. Of course

if you would like this forum to degenerate into a carbon copy of a

similar one; where someone actually suggested a politician be

assassinated because they didn't like his point of view that is your

choice, but as contributors are in short supply it could be something to

think about, as extremes of any kind should I feel be avoided.

[/quote]

No, no, Nick, extremes are absolutely necessary.  You don't need to agree with them but they are there to start a debate.  I feel, for example that Jeremy Corbyn is totally unelectable but the man starts people talking about things.

Rants are just fine, clears the lungs.  I have been known to have had a rant or two and I think that, on the whole, they are a very GOOD THING[:D][:P]

Go, Grecian!  And anyone else who wish to get something off their chest[:D]  If you can't have  good old rant on the forum, where else could you do it???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="NickP"][quote user="Rabbie"] 

My advice is that if you disagree with the  OP's views then help to keep this forum alive by putting up an intelligent rebuttal of his opinion and the debate can continue. It rather defeats the object of a forum if every controversial opinion is to be deleted.

[/quote]

Nobody asked for the subject to be deleted, so stop jumping the gun.

Some people offered the view that this forum is not the place to start a

political rant, and that is how the original post came over. Of course

if you would like this forum to degenerate into a carbon copy of a

similar one; where someone actually suggested a politician be

assassinated because they didn't like his point of view that is your

choice, but as contributors are in short supply it could be something to

think about, as extremes of any kind should I feel be avoided.

[/quote]I have reread Wooly's original reply where he suggested that Grecian's post had no place on this forum and that the mods might withdraw(delete) it. You and Another expressed your agreement with Wooly's post so I do not feel I was mistaken in thinking that you wanted the post deleted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP who referred to the 'present government' in such 'glowing terms' -

Just A Reminder;  the UK has General Elections where voters cast votes for various political parties.

The UK Labour Government was never voted for by the majority of British people;  those who didn't vote for 'that' lot put up with them - because another General Election could change 'that lot'.

We now have 'another lot' - and again not voted for by the majority of UK voters - tough.

Don't forget all the 'slagging off' about the existing Government is really rather silly;  they are like buses - another 3 years and the UK could have the wonderful Mr J Corbyn - and his rather 'odd' friends in charge.   And when I say 'odd' - they are dangerous.

You gets whats you votes for - sometimes you is 'appy, and sometimes you ain't -

But Governments change; as for trusting this 'lot' - never;  as for trusting Corbyns' lot - never.

Do I trust any of 'em - nope.

And that goes for the French 'lot' as well.........!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No British government since the war has had the support of 50% of the votes cast. The Next British general Election is due to be held in May 2020 as a result of the fixed term legislation passed in 2010 so very unlikely for any government change till then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rabbie"]No British government since the war has had the support of 50% of the votes cast. The Next British general Election is due to be held in May 2020 as a result of the fixed term legislation passed in 2010 so very unlikely for any government change till then.

[/quote]

Which rather makes a mockery of the criticism of the EU as being 'undemocratic' [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello all, well I think this is a very interesting topic and so I thought that I'd add my tuppence! If you haven't the time or inclination to read all of the letter via email that I sent to IDS a couple of years ago then do read the bit at the bottom as it may just make you giggle a little maybe we should trust what search engines tell us! Mrs KG

Private Office to The Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith MP
Tel: 0207 340 4000 (switchboard)
Fax: 0203 267 5091 
Email: [email protected]

Hello IDS,

Having never written to an MP before I now find that the time has come to let off some steam!

Has the government thought the pensions changes through thoroughly? How can anyone make plans for retirement when in the last few years the following changes to receiving the OAP have taken place.

THE 1ST CHANGE TO AFFECT MY STATE PENSION

I was born in May 1955 ie one month late in order to collect my pension at 60 a loss of 5 years.

Your pension statement explained - July 2009

Part of the Department for Work and Pensions

- page 11

"The first change is that the age at which women reach State Pension age will gradually increase to 65 the same as for men. This increase will happen in stages between 2010 and 2020, and will affect you if you are a woman born on or after 6 April 1950 but before 6 April 1955.

If you are a woman born on or after 6 April 1955 but before 6 April 1959, your State Pension age will be 65."

THE 2ND CHANGE TO AFFECT MY STATE PENSION

I now loose another year, a loss of 6 years in total

Pension age will increase to 66

Equality Impact Assessment January 2011

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/when-the-pension-age-will-change.pdf

"As a result of these changes, women born from 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1960 and men born from 6 December 1953 to 5 April 1960 will have a higher State Pension age than if no change to the current timetable was made."

3RD CHANGE TO AFFECT MY STATE PENSION

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility

"To get the full basic State Pension you need 30 years worth of contributions or credits. These are your ‘qualifying years’. If you have fewer than 30 years your State Pension will be less than £107.45 per week."

I breathe a sigh of relief as I have worked full time since I was 15 and stopped working at 51.5 years as my husband took early retirement at that point.

4TH CHANGE TO AFFECT MY STATE PENSION - Jan 2013

"People will have to make 35 years' worth of National Insurance contributions to qualify for the more generous weekly retirement payments from 2017, up from 30 years now. At the moment, an individual begins to build up state pension entitlement after one year of NI contributions, but under the new system this will be increased to 10 years. The minimum state pension will be £41 a week in today's money, based on 10 years of NI contributions".

I take back my sigh of relief as I now need 35 years worth of contributions. I now find I am short of 35 years by 2.5 years.

So, at the moment the government has gained six years of not having to pay for my OAP. Plus the government is going to pay me less due to me having worked full time for 36.5 years approx but as the first 4 years do not count (started work aged 15) I have not achieved the 35 years now needed.

PS I don't know whether my husband will contact you separately as he now finds he will have to wait an extra year to collect his OAP and having thought that working 33 years from the age of 19 he would collect a full state pension he finds that is now WRONG !

So the government is doing quite well out of this household.

We have never had children so therefore have not collected any benefits from the state in this respect.

PS as a somewhat amusing end to my gripe, I did a search for Ian Duncan Smith on the link below and was rather bemused to the suggestion on the search site

'did you mean' 'Ian Redundancy Smith' !!!!!

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/search/apachesolr_search/ian%20duncan%20smith?filters=tid%3A1165

You'll be getting my vote every time !!

Kind regards,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it seems that the general census of opinion on this forum is that anything goes,

lets hope we all remember that when we read something we don't like.

 

So a couple of questions to Grecian.

a) Has anybody actually told you how much worse off you will be and why?

b) What degree of disability does your wife have?

I

ask; as like most people I don't know very much about disability

allowances, I was freelance for over 40 years so benefits of any kind

were an unknown quantity to me.

Although since this discussion

has come up I've been doing a bit of research, and I can't find anything

that says that as long as you are entitled to benefits; that you will

lose out, plus some benefits are to be intergrated into other payment categories. It does also appear that a lot of people are going to be re-

assessed,  well if that is true, it leads me to

think that maybe some people, not necessarily you, might just be

claiming things they aren't entitled to. Therefor in my opinion; at last

the Civil Servants are doing their jobs properly and trying to look after the

public's money, which hasn't always been the case.

Lastly  another question to you

 I

understand that some benefits are for people who can't work because of a

disability, is that correct? if so when the person claiming that

benefit reaches retirement age and gets the Old age pension, does the

benefit stop?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Mrs KG"].

THE 1ST CHANGE TO AFFECT MY STATE PENSION

I was born in May 1955 ie one month late in order to collect my pension at 60 a loss of 5 years.

Your pension statement explained - July 2009

Part of the Department for Work and Pensions

- page 11

"The first change is that the age at which women reach State Pension age will gradually increase to 65 the same as for men. ,[/quote]

The following information has been readily available to the public:

" 1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised

Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government

was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women.

The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for

women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.

2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67,

and then 68 introduced

The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between

April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to

68 between April 2044 and April 2046."

So are you saying that you didn't know that the rules were changing? I contacted the pensions people when I was 55 to check what I was going to be entitled to, everybody should do this, it's in your own interest

Some of us had to have 44 years of contributions to get a full pension. So you'll get no sympathy from us for having to pay for 35 years.[:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Patf"]NickP - do you have, or are you expecting to have, a state pension?

if so, that's a benefit.

Or are you thinking of generously donating it back to the Govt., because you have enough to live on without it?

[/quote]

There you go; straight away a typical snide remark from the loony left, I

said that when working, "as I had been freelance benefits were unknown

to me". Nothing about my present circumstances. I suggest you copy the trait you admire in your leader Corbyn and keep shtum.[:P][:P]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Nick,

No at the time around 15 + years ago I did not know about the changes. I worked as a PA to the Finance Director of a large life insurance company & the OH also worked in the finance industry and so fortunately paid into private pension funds for many years and was given very good up to date advice re pensions private & state. We also asked for a state pension statement/forecast so that we could plan ahead for early retirement so that we might live reasonably on our pots and I agree with you that everyone should ask for a pension statement.

I was just fed up with the government/IDS 'fiddling' around with the state pension yet again and so decided to do something totally out of my character and that was to write to IDS to make the point.

Maybe my sympathy is for you as I think I may come out with more per week than perhaps you will that's if the Brexit doesn't give the government another reason to have a fiddle ! - I want to insert the 11th icon in here but i can't for some reason Wink or pull my tongue out at you!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any state pension that I might get in the future wont be a benefit, it will be a miracle.

 

If becoming a pensioner means becoming a whinger then I will happily forgo what some think is an entitlement, others a benefit and myself a miracle.

 

Does anybody really not understand the mechanics of the demographic crisis? The need to have more as many people working as possible to pay the benefits of the ever growing non working population including those that choose not to?

 

Does enybody really think that they can retire on private pension income in their 40's or 50's and still expect to collect their full or partial state pension at 65 despite not having contributed one penny towards the retirees in the last up to 20 years? And I include myself here.

 

Did anybody really believe that in the face of the demographic crisis and the need for urgent action the government reducing qualifying years from 44 (I think) to 30 years was anything other than the act of either a mad person or someone hiding the real agenda, i.e. that the qulifying years would increase, the pension age would increase and in all probabliity many people would be excluded completely.

 

I have absolutely no expectations of recieving a state pension before I am 75 and by then I will have been excluded for either having lived abroad, not contributed for X years or having less than 30 years of contributions.

 

You can whinge all you like about how unfair it is, nobody has ever had it as good as our generation either before or especially after, that is why people are so shocked to face dissapointment and minor hardship for the first time ever, make no mistake 35 qualifying years is nowhere near enough, a 10 year minimum is nowhere near enough, pension age at 70 is nowhere near high enough and all of these will change many more times in the years to come.

 

The problem as I see it is the safety net of the welfare benefits that will step in if people dont get enough or any state pension, it rewards those who may have never done a days work in their life, were that to be removed people would want to work and to accrue pension rights, people like me and probably many on this forum would never have stepped off the ride before state pension age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re the pensions.

If women did not realise that the system had to be rehashed, then they should have, because we should have all known, it would be.

The pension committee dealing with the most recent changes ignored the Labour governments suggestions, but decided a 10 year plan should be put in place to adjust things would  be a better solution. This was royally ignored completely by IDS's lackey who announced that the changes would come into affect in April 2017, Then suddenly changed it to July 2016 and then, I can only suppose on a whim..........April 2016.

Stephen Webb, (what I wish on that man is unprintable!) who apparently is an economist waffled on Money Box two or three years ago about the whole thing and could not answer many of the questions and yet it was he who was in charge of the rehash. Sounded more 'myst'ified to me than an econo'mist'!

I called Newcastle on many occasions to get advice, which in spite of the New Pensions Dept, were unable to give me any, as the law had not actually been passed and could in reality only give me information on the old system.

The reason the 10 years time scale was suggested was because women needed to be able to sort their affairs out, ie get enough money together to make up any missing payments as other goal posts were going to be changed, from 30 years, to 35 years. So ten years was not only sort their affairs out, but decide when they were going to retire.

I know women in terrible financial situations because of the pension law that went through in 2015.

Remember in spite of it being 'all' this time, the government still cannot make sure that there is fair pay for women,

which frankly would have the been the thing they started with, instead of

attacking old age pensions. When everyone is on a level 'pay' playing field

then make everything else equal....!

And the EU, well, the french give allowances towards their pensions for women who have had children. So parity it ain't? And can NEVER be, nor should it be. It is only a measily 4 trimestres, so, a year less to work, per child, but it is  at least something.

Would the UK government do that, think of it.......THIS LOT.......not on your nelly they wouldn't. Doubt the last lot or the one before would have either.

Seems that the only protected UK budgets are for overseas aid, and we still give to India. India, who is spending a bloody fortune on Raffales from France. Which is quite another discussion.

Re handicapped people. Well, IF some people are dishonest, then there are those who are desperately ill who need all the help they can get......... and it could happen to any of us at any time. And as has been shown in the news papers people who should be getting it are not or it has been reduced when it should not have been. Bedridden and sometimes on breathing machines and quite unable to get to an interview have funding removed because they did not turn up. Or real handicaps/illnesses simply ignored and no common sense involved at all.

I do believe that there is a big question mark on  the whole assessment process.

Also, who is responsible for informing the assessors. Just who is really responsible, because one can be run ragged with a sick person in one's care, just keeping on top of their daily needs, never mind the paperwork involved.

And 'caring' can be made even worse when that ill person is now a monster, egotistical, selfish beyond belief and any care or compassion they had, dimmed and feels like extinguished, by their own problems.

The carer's allowance, well compared to the work done, is an insult as those 35 hours, are often a lot more.

Incidentally saw IDS on tv today with his whinging. Boohoo! You have seen my opinion of him so, sadly or perhaps stupidly on my part, I was waiting in vain for his nose to grow. But you have to hand it to politicians, what comes out of their mouths should be taken with a pinch of salt.......... and if I was a drinker, I'd say with a big glass of tequila!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NickP posted earlier -  (can't do copy/paste) -

That it was UNDER PRESSURE FROM THE EU - funny how that ahsn't been mentioned.

It seems that it was the EU - the so-called 'protector' of social rights and workers protection - that back in 1995 -

was putting under pressure - democratically elected UK Government.

Back in 1995 - we had a Conservative Government who appeared to come up with reasonable plans.

Then we had the 'wonderful' Blair years - 13 of them.

Then we had a Coalition Government.

Rant all the OP wishes to about this 'present lot' - but in fact the UK has ONLY had a proper Tory Government for the last 2 years.

So all the pension decisions will have been made - BY THE EU

By LABOUR

and COALITION

So shouldn't they be the ones to be 'ranted at'..........

But the EU STARTED IT ALL - back in 1995 - how about shouting at the EU.   Oh no, can't do that, they 'protect the worker', they are the only 'safety net' against the Tories -

REALLY.

The EU is a disaster for ordinary working people;  see what they did to Greece and the government of Greece; and Spain, etc etc.

So in any debate about pension changes then maybe ire and ranting should be directed to the EU - they are to blame.

NOT any recent UK Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whichever government is in power, now or in the next decade, I hope they can manage to rise to the challenge laid down by the Great British Public of balancing the economic books, whilst at the same time ensuring that no money is taken away from any of the following:

The disabled

The working poor

The non-working poor

Libraries

The NHS

Doctors

Nurses

The police

Firemen

Pensioners

Students

Universities

Schools

Local authorities

Small businesses

Parents

And probably about another dozen special interest groups I've missed.

Because these days, apparently, everyone is a special interest group whose money from the central coffers must be protected at all costs, regardless of the fact that the outgoing Labour government pointed out two elections ago that the "pot" was already empty.

Good luck with that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

" I understand that some benefits are for people who can't work because of a disability, is that correct? if so when the person claiming that benefit reaches retirement age and gets the Old age pension, does the benefit stop?"

That always was the case NickP.. that once someone retires and has the state pension they are no longer entitled to disability payments that are paid in lieu of work. This is always the dilemma with raising pension age. Because generally as people get older, more are likely to develop long term health problems that prevent them from working, then as you delay pension age, you increase the need for disability payments for those of working age. It always was much cheaper for the government to pay a pension to someone than to pay them disability benefits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...