I was watching some financial programme the other day and it was suggested that Keir Starmer should never of told the public about the £22B financial hole, it was claimed as soon as he done that it affected consumer confidence. The public should have been on a high with an incoming new government, that should have been a positive for the economy, but by announcing the grand scale of things he turned it into a negative. So then my thoughts...bearing what I just said in mind, to then announce you are taking away the WFA only adds to that negativity, actually he went for the hat-trick, something you don't often see at Arsenal, he also announced that there was more of the same to come in October. I certainly can see how a combination of all those things could affect public spending and also affect the financial markets. Keir does things his way and I'll suck it up for the longer term benefits, but as an experienced barrister and public prosecutor, he must realise how careless words can be damaging...and in turn for all his honesty, it will just bring questions about his credability, not from us, but from the financial powers that be, sometimes silence really is the best policy. Afterall he's supposed to be in office for the solutions, not the problems, unless the only answers he has is yet more blame culture. Tony Blair was a lot more savvy when it came to words and boosting public confidence, his only downfall was Iraq. Maybe Starmer needs to start learning to smile, instead of the constant doom and gloom and using the Tories as some sort of shield, a bit of tongue in cheek here... https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2001/jun/09/weekend7.weekend
Quick question about claims (I can send you the obligatory cake if you wish). I retired 2 years ago on my railway pension, but when I receive my state pension in a few years time it will be very slightly short as RPI (and several other defined benefit schemes, in all truth) opted out (whatever that means) decades ago, so apparently I'm 2 years short of full national insurance. Ironically, I've paid national insurance for over 43 years, including when the scheme 'opted out', and plenty of it on the overtime I've worked over the years (Archers - tell them how much overtime we're expected to bastard well work on the railway), but for those years we had relief on our pensions, then they don't count even if you paid a billion pounds of NI in that year. To the point (!) - if I registered as unemployed, though I don't, obviously, qualify for any benefits, would I still get my NI paid (as my old next-door neighbour from way back, who never worked a ****ing day in his life did) and received a full pension? I do have the option of paying HMRI @ £1600 to fill in the gap, or, as I'm looking forward to doing, I could get a retirement job in Tesco's on minimum wage (no probs with that, it would pay for hols and spoiling my grandkid due next Spring). But of all the options, can I just sign on and claim no benefits and still get my stamp paid? As you're Not 606s Martin Lewis, like.
There are a few caveats (that i do not know precisely) but i know you can top up your state pension to get the full state pension. My MIL did it. https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions
Hmm. I would say it's all part of the strategy to try and counterpoint and contrast themselves with what they are trying to portray as the Tories winging it and flying by the seat of their pants (especially since Johnson). The idea is to say to the world markets "Look, the adults are in charge now - the economy is in sober, prudent hands." The Gordon Brown/Alastair Darling thing (yes, I know 2008 happened under their watch, but it wasn't their main fault, and serious economists - including Osbourne himself now - credit them both with saving the worldwide banking system from collapse with their action). That may well be the strategy - but as has been already said by many on here, the pensioner heating crisis sent the completely wrong message that the country was teetering on the edge of collapse and crushed all-round confidence, and not just in consumers. For instance, I have 2 nurses in my family and their first reaction was not 'Oh great, a Labour government, and we'll get more pay and resources', but was instead "****, our grannies and all the others will now be clogging up A&E and GP surgeries even more than they were under the Tories". I agree that pensioners receiving more than £30k a year shouldn't be getting any benefits (including me and my sister, tbh). Still, I get the impression that despite 14 years of having time to prepare policies and plans (including walking into office and finding a concealed ****show) this government just isn't ready to rule. Very, very worrying.
On your last paragraph, I'd probably disagree and say they certainly ARE ready to rule, I just don't think Keir is being very business savvy. I'm sure there was a better way to handle the pensioners, but is he to blame for that or Reeves? If it had been me I'd have been saying whooa hang on here, what is it you are actually trying to achieve, what are the real financial savings (taking out pension credit from your savings) and what's a better way of achieving the end goal. One thing that I've seen that hasn't been mentioned in any convo about it, is when the WFA is paid, Nov-Dec, so the run up to Christmas, and whether paid to the poor OR the wealthy it's £300 less they are going to have to spend in the UK economy. This really hasn't been thought through. I honestly don't know who has been advising Starmer but it's been very short sighted and hastily implemented. I think someone suggested wouldn't it have been better implemented in October, when he drops all the other bombshells (not sure if that was you?), I'd probably agree with that, but somehow present it in a different format - all I will say is i've seen some very pissed off pensioners, the most pissed off that I can actually remember, and to me that spells as a public relations disaster. I'm not getting at Starmer here, I want him to do well, but fooking hell I can only but laugh.
well i'm well out of the loop on benefits i stopped doing them as early as 1999 after that just IT though you pick up stuff . However traditionall you would get crediited with basic NI conts for periods of sickness/ unemployment but with the new style RP god knows mate . Just get a pension forecast done https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension
Full pension is based on number of qualifying years, for a full state pension you need 35 years and I believe that's the new state pension. You need 10 years minimum to be entitled.
well sign on for the credits then edit: just remembered i get the credits as well because i get a pitiful amount of ESA (sickness / Invalidity benefit as was )
Yeah, as I say I paid over 43 years of NI (quite heftily in some years when I earned a lot in our Control Centre), including the 10 years my pension scheme opted out. But because they claimed relief on NI in those years - though I still actually paid lots of NI during those years) I end up being 2 years short of a full pension. It's only buttons (about £11.50 a week), but it's the effing principle. I mean one of the years the scheme opted out I actually still paid £4k NI anyway! ****ing bizarre. Great being PAYE, innit?
Yeah, that was the question - shall I sign on knowing I can't get benefits, or will they kick me off if I refuse work?
that makes no sense to me because your NI was paid to the contributions agency by your employer and then recorded against your personal record ..Your pension scheme contributions are irrelevant for basic RP. On your pensions forecast did it tell you which years were missing ?
Yeah it should tell him, will be listed for every year, I can track back to when I first had employment at the age of 16.
She did over the phone. She actually said those in the CS were in the same boat as many of those, including herself, were in defined benefit schemes as well.
