Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
SaintStu said:
I don't mean to sound pedantic @ImpSaint but your father as a civil servant would have a full civil service pension payable at age 60 and the maximum reckonable service is 40, so the last 5 years he worked his pension would only increased by the amount his final salary was - the state pension is the hundred odd quid you get at 65. The era of decent pensions in the civil service has definitely worsened since 2010. As a civil servant myself with 20 years service currently, in the last 8 years I have had either 1% or 0% annual salary increases, my pension eroded to career average, my pension age increased from 60 to 67.
As for Jeremy Corbyn - it is very easy for him to set out a quite radical manifesto in the belief he is unlikely to be required to fulfil it. It is a manifesto that I broadly agree with, especially unfreezing the pay constraint to the public sector. Where it falls down is that the greed of those above the 'JAM' threshold will not want to pay for it, plus add his unclear approach to Brexit and that many people know that the traditional left support is very split on Brexit leads to him being against the odds for being PM, and I say this as a Labour supporter who may for the first time may vote liberal in my currently tory-held seat in Somerset.
Click to expand...
He was very clear on Brexit today. The country voted for it, so he intends to get the best possible deal for the British people from the EU, including access to the Single Market. That's not unclear at all.

I sympathise with you voting Lib Dem in a Tory seat, that's what I'm going to do as there is no hope of ever electing a Labour MP in Wells under our broken electoral system.
 
SaintStu said:
I don't mean to sound pedantic @ImpSaint but your father as a civil servant would have a full civil service pension payable at age 60 and the maximum reckonable service is 40, so the last 5 years he worked his pension would only increased by the amount his final salary was - the state pension is the hundred odd quid you get at 65. The era of decent pensions in the civil service has definitely worsened since 2010. As a civil servant myself with 20 years service currently, in the last 8 years I have had either 1% or 0% annual salary increases, my pension eroded to career average, my pension age increased from 60 to 67.
As for Jeremy Corbyn - it is very easy for him to set out a quite radical manifesto in the belief he is unlikely to be required to fulfil it. It is a manifesto that I broadly agree with, especially unfreezing the pay constraint to the public sector. Where it falls down is that the greed of those above the 'JAM' threshold will not want to pay for it, plus add his unclear approach to Brexit and that many people know that the traditional left support is very split on Brexit leads to him being against the odds for being PM, and I say this as a Labour supporter who may for the first time may vote liberal in my currently tory-held seat in Somerset.
Click to expand...

You are probably right. I was calculating most of it from what he had said. i.e. retiring 4 years early but when I came to 46 years service I was thinking I thought he said 41 but went with the maths instead.

Not sure on the 40 year maximum thing. He definitely started working straight from school at 16 and definitely served over 40 years. Ties in though. He was retired when he helped me move into the house before this one and that was 2006 If he retired at 57 then that would've been 41 years service and retiring in 2005 the same year my Grandad's inheritance cleared and with his pension unpayable until 2008.

That doesn't add up though When he says 4 years waiting after 41 year's service he must mean almost 4 years waiting and almost 41 year's service. Don't suppose that is so important. lol

I totally agree on Corbyn. It is the perfect manifesto. Very popular and very easy to sell. Very hard to make work though. Maybe if the voters are as stupid as politicians and many in society say they are they will not worry about the reality, see the policies and Corbyn will be victorious next month.
 
Last edited:
ImpSaint said:
You are probably right. I was calculating most of it from what he had said. i.e. retiring 4 years early but when I came to 46 years service I was thinking I thought he said 41 but went with the maths instead.

Not sure on the 40 year maximum thing. He definitely started working straight from school at 16 and definitely served over 40 years. Ties in though. He was retired when he helped me move into the house before this one and that was 2006 If he retired at 57 then that would've been 41 years service and retiring in 2005 the same year my Grandad's inheritance cleared and with his pension unpayable until 2008.

That doesn't add up though When he says 4 years waiting after 41 year's service he must mean almost 4 years waiting and almost 41 year's service. Don't suppose that is so important. lol

I totally agree on Corbyn. It is the perfect manifesto. Very popular and very easy to sell. Very hard to make work though. Maybe if the voters are as stupid as politicians and many in society say they are they will not worry about the reality, see the policies and Corbyn will be victorious next month.
Click to expand...
Whatever the maths is, my dad got a pension of 32,000 a year from the GPO / BT and my mum worked for them too. One generation down, worked for the private sector, never claimed any benefits, paid more for pension, and it's crap!
 
and I'm fairly sure my daughters (28 / 30 years old) have no payments in a pension fund. This is where a Tory / monetary lead society has lead us. In 30 years this will come to roost. I won't be here but my grand children will suffer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
SaintinSerbia said:
Whatever the maths is, my dad got a pension of 32,000 a year from the GPO / BT and my mum worked for them too. One generation down, worked for the private sector, never claimed any benefits, paid more for pension, and it's crap!
Click to expand...

I suppose like many wonder how working class justify voting Tory I often find it hard to understand why My parents vote Lib Dem (if they still do.)

They most definitely don't buy into inheritance tax.

My Dad's pension is about the same. I have a private pension pot but then between 16 and 26 I worked in 2 pretty good jobs, the first of which paid double the employee contribution so I used to pay the full 7% back then to get 21% paid in.

Can't touch any of it till 60 though (although I guess I could cash in earlier with that new thing Osborne brought in which sort of would defeat me paying in.)

So I will be fine once I am 60 with the state and private added together. Not rich but survivable.

My Mum also is quite matter of fact and when I talk about pensions she always proudly states "don't worry, our house is your pension."
 
ImpSaint said:
I suppose like many wonder how working class justify voting Tory I often find it hard to understand why My parents vote Lib Dem (if they still do.)

They most definitely don't buy into inheritance tax.

My Dad's pension is about the same. I have a private pension pot but then between 16 and 26 I worked in 2 pretty good jobs, the first of which paid double the employee contribution so I used to pay the full 7% back then to get 21% paid in.

Can't touch any of it till 60 though (although I guess I could cash in earlier with that new thing Osborne brought in which sort of would defeat me paying in.)

So I will be fine once I am 60 with the state and private added together. Not rich but survivable.

My Mum also is quite matter of fact and when I talk about pensions she always proudly states "don't worry, our house is your pension."
Click to expand...
but it's going down every generation, your mum is proud because she had the advantages of a state job and a state pension. Her inheritance will be whittled down, as you say you live in a council house, there's nothing for you to pass down, just some cash, that'll soon be lost. Vote for Jez Imp, re-build the working class!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road, ImpSaint and ChilcoSaint
SaintinSerbia said:
but it's going down every generation, your mum is proud because she had the advantages of a state job and a state pension. Her inheritance will be whittled down, as you say you live in a council house, there's nothing for you to pass down, just some cash, that'll soon be lost. Vote for Jez Imp, re-build the working class!
Click to expand...

Her inheritance is already gone. "subsidising" the gap in those "4" years, building an extension (onto the house that I'll inherit half of) and going to the US twice as well as other joys.

Like she says. They had a hard life making tough decisions paying the mortgage and bringing up a family. They don;t understand the modern moan about hardship. They gave up the equivalents of nights out, alcohol and gadgets. Lived on the basics, and had to wait until their 50s to be "comfortable." They look agog at my wife when she says we are struggling (we're not) yet we have mobile phones, tablets, playstations all sorts of "stuff."

They spent their money on a house and bringing up their family with no state support. "We" spend our money on............ourselves and moan that the state should pay more.

I doubt my Mum is overly proud of having the advantages of a state job and pension. She retired at 23 when I was born so there won;t be much of a pension there. Government didn't give "free daycare" back then.

Nope, I'll not be voting for Corbyn. Totally disagree with the Labour position on Brexit and anyone else who goes on about hard or soft Brexit. It is Brexit. Continuing to pay in to maintain "free trade" and continuation of freedom of movement of labour (not people) is not Brexit. It is membership of the EU by another name.

And while they continue to talk about "securing access" I will struggle to believe much of what they say. The world has "access" to the single market. The US has access to the single market without a trade deal. By continuing to suggest we won't have access is disingenuous and meant to deceive people.

As much as I like a lot of Corbyn's other policies we all know they wouldn't work because the policies are proposing that those that are utilising "globalisation" now to avoid paying into the pot will suddenly accept paying more than the amount they should have been paying and aren't.

It is a utopian thing. possible - yes, desirable - probably, achievable - not with the current system of globalisation. All those tax sources will utilise the next loophole in whichever country leave the gap open with a wink.

In 5 years time without the Brexit question? Not for me but would be interesting to see what the "score" would be without the Brexit question. You can't expect to be able to make business/people pay in more when you can;t even make them pay what they should now and society is defending "globalisation" so I can't see it working anytime in the near future.
 
Last edited:
Anyone know why Laura Kuensberg hates Jeremy Corbyn so much? She is in charge of our "neutral BBC", nbut I have never seen such obvious bias outside the tabloids.

Just jumping in to say I am a pragmatist. I vote for policy, not party, but as a teacher I can safely tell you the Tories are strangling the country (unless you are rich enough to start a (hahaha) 'FREE' school).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and Saints_Alive
spacedsaint said:
Anyone know why Laura Kuensberg hates Jeremy Corbyn so much? She is in charge of our "neutral BBC", nbut I have never seen such obvious bias outside the tabloids.

Just jumping in to say I am a pragmatist. I vote for policy, not party, but as a teacher I can safely tell you the Tories are strangling the country (unless you are rich enough to start a (hahaha) 'FREE' school).
Click to expand...
It's been obvious for a while that Kuenssberg's pro-Tory agenda goes way beyond what is acceptable in a publicly owned broadcaster. She should have lost her job ages ago when it was found that she had faked the interview with Corbyn regarding the "shoot to kill" policy, where she spliced in a different question to an answer he gave. If the BBC had a pro-Labour political editor the written press would be outraged beyond belief, but it's apparently OK for Kuenssberg to carry in the way she does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading......
ChilcoSaint said:
It's been obvious for a while that Kuenssberg's pro-Tory agenda goes way beyond what is acceptable in a publicly owned broadcaster. She should have lost her job ages ago when it was found that she had faked the interview with Corbyn regarding the "shoot to kill" policy, where she spliced in a different question to an answer he gave. If the BBC had a pro-Labour political editor the written press would be outraged beyond belief, but it's apparently OK for Kuenssberg to carry in the way she does.
Click to expand...

Completely agree that this woman is out of order,however she isn't pro-tory.Pro Laura maybe,I believe she'd say anything her ego tells her.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road and ImpSaint
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back