sidcow Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 In other news the state pension is rising by significantly more than inflation. Triple lock innit. Won't that pay for a little heat in the 3 months you might die of cold? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 9 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: But there is a technicality here. It is illegal to pay illegal gangs, and travel over the channel in a small boat. So they are basically illegals until they claim and are granted asylum. So the many, was it 17000+ in the country on the waiting list who have disappeared or even not applied, are illegal immigrants Breaking the law to get here doesn’t make you an illegal immigrant. Some of the people on those boats are illegal immigrants. Some of them are breaking the law to get here but have a right to be here and live here. Lumping them into the same boat (literally and figuratively) is a massive part of the problem. That you’re clearly showing with your attitudes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10 Moderator Share Posted September 10 14 minutes ago, Stevo985 said: Some of them are breaking the law to get here I agree with your post but this bit triggered me a bit, not because I disagree but which country's law are they breaking? It can't be UK law as the act takes place elsewhere I presume it's French Law and as such that has not a lot to do with their status in the UK unless France chooses to apply for extradition, which isn't going to happen for a whole multitude of reasons There's also the idea that arriving by boat is illegal here but I rather suspect that international law will make that half witted Tory idea null and void Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 Tories have a long and storied record of essentially arguing that islands are special, and nobody agrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mozzavfc Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 31 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: Could you explain that - opportunities for whom? Our foreign aid is a bit of a mix. 25% (ish) is spent on paying for hotels for refugees in the UK. The support we send to Ukraine is also counted in it, which everyone would agree is worth it. We have large investments in medical research, which are also net positive for everyone. Also the majority of our aid isn't cash. It is goods, which come from UK businesses Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 Winter fuel allowance thing is stupid and I'd be surprised if made a meaningful difference to any budget positively to means test it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 10 Administrator Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, MakemineVanilla said: Could you explain that - opportunities for whom? UK businesses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 22 minutes ago, Chindie said: Winter fuel allowance thing is stupid and I'd be surprised if made a meaningful difference to any budget positively to means test it. It might be better if no one got it at all because basically its main aim is to mitigate the consequences of governments' serial disastrous energy policies. They want high energy prices to encourage people to use less but don't want to face the political consequences of dead grannies piling up outside Downing Street. Energy inequality is just another inequality added to the rest of the inequalities which are clearly apparent in every city up and down the country. While we argue amongst ourselves they can pretend that the political system is functional, which it hasn't been for a very long time. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 11 minutes ago, limpid said: UK businesses. So basically subsidies for businesses which cannot compete by being better or cheaper than their rivals. Wouldn't that tend to lead to political corruption as businesses buy political influence to get that subsidy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted September 10 Administrator Share Posted September 10 Just now, MakemineVanilla said: So basically subsidies for businesses which cannot compete by being better or cheaper than their rivals. Wouldn't that tend to lead to political corruption as businesses buy political influence to get that subsidy? Yes, but also acting as introductions where businesses / governments might not otherwise interact. Potentially, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, bickster said: I agree with your post but this bit triggered me a bit, not because I disagree but which country's law are they breaking? It can't be UK law as the act takes place elsewhere I presume it's French Law and as such that has not a lot to do with their status in the UK unless France chooses to apply for extradition, which isn't going to happen for a whole multitude of reasons There's also the idea that arriving by boat is illegal here but I rather suspect that international law will make that half witted Tory idea null and void Yeah I'll admit I don't know the answer if I'm honest. The point is there is a big distinction between people who actually have no right to be here, an actual illegal immigrant; and someone who has a right to be here but we force them to get here illegally And it results in people lumping them all in together, when it shouldn't be the case Edited September 10 by Stevo985 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 22 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said: So basically subsidies for businesses which cannot compete by being better or cheaper than their rivals. Wouldn't that tend to lead to political corruption as businesses buy political influence to get that subsidy? The presumption with Thatcherism is that there is a level playing field and our businesses left unsupported can compete with the U.S. and Chinese governments simply by having a longer working day, or executive bonuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morley_crosses_to_Withe Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 1 hour ago, sidcow said: In other news the state pension is rising by significantly more than inflation. Triple lock innit. Won't that pay for a little heat in the 3 months you might die of cold? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danwichmann Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 2 hours ago, foreveryoung said: Only 'if', they are claiming pension credit. Which apparently 800k are not. A big percentage of that is probably because they have no idea how to. We know how difficult it can be to claim for these benefits with the paperwork involved. And there has been a massive increase in people applying for pension credit, so a lot more people who need it are now going to get that plus the winter fuel allowance, and it won't really cost anything because we stop paying fuel allowance to lots of people that don't need it. It seems like a win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 11 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: The presumption with Thatcherism is that there is a level playing field and our businesses left unsupported can compete with the U.S. and Chinese governments simply by having a longer working day, or executive bonuses. Isn't that what economists call comparative advantage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 10 Moderator Share Posted September 10 8 minutes ago, Morley_crosses_to_Withe said: No. I can only see the line about it starting next April, which would be a valid criticism if the state pension hadn't risen by £800+ this year i.e. since the last winter fuel payments 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 44 minutes ago, bickster said: I can only see the line about it starting next April, which would be a valid criticism if the state pension hadn't risen by £800+ this year i.e. since the last winter fuel payments I was just about to post the same thing. Lewis has rightly stated that the next rise doesn't kick in until April 2025 but then makes comparisons to last winter stating pensioners face £500 higher costs than last winter (bills £100 cheaper but no winter fuel payment of £300 and no cost of living payment of £300). He does completely omit the fact that the full state pension went up £900 in April though. The biggest issue with this is that they need these £800,000 people entitled to pension credit to come forward and claim it. They have really tried to push this the last couple of months and it seems more and more are now coming forward. I have zero problem with this now being means tested though as I'd say every pensioner in my family (my mom,aunts/uncles) who has gotten this winter fuel payment hasn't needed it. My mom gets the state pension and decent private pensions from her own one and my dads who died years ago.The maddening thing is when energy prices rose a couple of years ago though I would go round to her house and it would be really cold and she'd be sat in a coat and hat. She did this simply on the basis she didn't want to be paying more. I spoke to friends about this and they knew elderly relatives doing exactly the same who could easily afford the rise in energy but chose to sit in a cold house. I'd say to my mom there are pensioners who have to sit in the cold through no choice as they can't afford to yet you are choosing to. It was infuriating. The bottom line is do you give it to everyone to ensure that no one who needs it falls through the net. There has surely got to be a better way of doing things than that and ensuring those who need it get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted September 10 VT Supporter Share Posted September 10 8 minutes ago, markavfc40 said: The bottom line is do you give it to everyone to ensure that no one who needs it falls through the net. There has surely got to be a better way of doing things than that and ensuring those who need it get it. I think the point was that by making the pension credit the threshold, it would catch nearly everyone who needed it but to actually means test every case would cost more than the saving. My thought a minute ago was how come the Tories didn't do this? Seems like a very Tory policy but the answer is of course that they were happy to ensure wealthy Tory Voting pensioners continued to receive extra money they didn't need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 There's certainly a lot of wealthy people who get it that don't need it, but if I'm not mistaken, the threshold for it is a mere 218 quid a week, or about 11,400 a year. And not only is it a cliff edge (as in, at the threshold you get the lot, 1 penny under, you get **** all), it's compounded by sharing the same cliff edge as other benefits, if you are eligible for the pension credit, you not only get the pension credit and the winter fuel allowance, but you also get the warm home discount, support for dental treatment and optical care, council tax discounts, housing benefit/mortgage interest support, free TV license.\ Someone that brings in less on their pension that puts them just under the threshold can end up much better off than someone who bring in a quid a week more. So, I don't object to means testing in general, but the implementation is shit, as is the Labour claim 'we have no choice'. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delboy54 Posted September 10 Share Posted September 10 4 hours ago, Wainy316 said: Well that's not really true is it considering there is a good number of Labour MPs against the policy. You are correct, but it seems that those Labour MP's will take the cowards way out and abstain rather than actively vote against it and get into trouble with the whips.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts