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!
Just days after one category 4 hurricane battered the US, another is forecast to smash into Florida. But of course climate change is a complete myth according to some people. Nothing to worry about at all.
 
tomw24 said:
Just days after one category 4 hurricane battered the US, another is forecast to smash into Florida. But of course climate change is a complete myth according to some people. Nothing to worry about at all.
Click to expand...

Yep half my team are in Tampa and they are all evacuating from the area in prep for this one. The last one missed Tampa last week and wasn't too bad they said, but this one will be worse - especially as it is on course to hit Tampa head on as a Cat 3 (120mph winds). The storm surge is what they are worried about - 10-12ft predicted
 
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
Yep half my team are in Tampa and they are all evacuating from the area in prep for this one. The last one missed Tampa last week and wasn't too bad they said, but this one will be worse - especially as it is on course to hit Tampa head on as a Cat 3 (120mph winds). The storm surge is what they are worried about - 10-12ft predicted
Click to expand...
Rising ocean temperatures are giving these storms a lot more strength and longevity. As a result they are hitting the coasts as cat 3+ storms, rather than cat 1 or 2. It also means states like North Carolina suffer as storms progress furher inland. And if you're really unlucky, the storm can leave conditions behind for tornadoes to form!

And yet Donald Trump is accusing the government of spending the relief money allocated to affected states on migrants. Twat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7, Le Tissier's Laces, StJabbo1 and 2 others
The winter fuel allowance fallout rumbles on, and so it should because imo it’s the wrong move at the wrong time, but just for a bit of perspective I have tracked back to when I first started to receive the state pension in 2021.
My weekly pension was £198.19 in that first year and should have risen by 8.5% under the triple lock rules but this was the year when the government suspended the triple lock.
My weekly pension, for 2022/23 rose to £204.32 instead of £216.45, a weekly loss of £12.14 and an annual loss of £631.28 due to the triple lock rules being broken by the Tory government.
But it doesn’t end there.
The next years increase was 10.1% but it was based on £204.32 and not on £216.45.
So for year 2023/24 my weekly pension was £224.95 and not £238.32, a weekly loss of £13.37 and an annual loss of £695.24.
My pension for 2024/25 rose by around 6.7% on £224.95 and not on £238.32, a weekly loss of £10.57 and an annual loss of £549.64.
By my reckoning that decision to suspend the triple lock will, by April 5th 2025, have lost me £1876.16 from my pension which is double the amount I would lose in 3 years with the fuel allowance being withdrawn.
This deficit will continue ad infinitum but the majority of pensioners are unaware as to how much money they have lost as a direct result of that decision in 2021.
Figures are based on what I received and the percentage increases were taken from a website, so there might be some fluctuation, in the figures and my mathematical abilities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AberdeenSaint and ChilcoSaint
San Tejón said:
The winter fuel allowance fallout rumbles on, and so it should because imo it’s the wrong move at the wrong time, but just for a bit of perspective I have tracked back to when I first started to receive the state pension in 2021.
My weekly pension was £198.19 in that first year and should have risen by 8.5% under the triple lock rules but this was the year when the government suspended the triple lock.
My weekly pension, for 2022/23 rose to £204.32 instead of £216.45, a weekly loss of £12.14 and an annual loss of £631.28 due to the triple lock rules being broken by the Tory government.
But it doesn’t end there.
The next years increase was 10.1% but it was based on £204.32 and not on £216.45.
So for year 2023/24 my weekly pension was £224.95 and not £238.32, a weekly loss of £13.37 and an annual loss of £695.24.
My pension for 2024/25 rose by around 6.7% on £224.95 and not on £238.32, a weekly loss of £10.57 and an annual loss of £549.64.
By my reckoning that decision to suspend the triple lock will, by April 5th 2025, have lost me £1876.16 from my pension which is double the amount I would lose in 3 years with the fuel allowance being withdrawn.
This deficit will continue ad infinitum but the majority of pensioners are unaware as to how much money they have lost as a direct result of that decision in 2021.
Figures are based on what I received and the percentage increases were taken from a website, so there might be some fluctuation, in the figures and my mathematical abilities.
Click to expand...


If the state pension is your only income, presumably you are still eligible for the Winter Fuel Allowance? The UK State pension is abysmal in any case. And I have to wait until I'm 67 to receive it, but I don't recall that decision (of David Cameron's) getting anything like the press attention Rachel Reeves' decision to means test the WFA continues to get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat
Ideologically I should be for the Winter Fuel Allowance, but I cannot support something which discriminates on age without considering wealth or need. I am all for subsidising all people’s fuel usage - preferably as part of a nationalisation of energy in the UK - but a system which helps those who have more than enough while ignoring younger people with nothing is not something I can get on board with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: garysfc, thereisonlyoneno7, StJabbo1 and 2 others
......loading...... said:
Ideologically I should be for the Winter Fuel Allowance, but I cannot support something which discriminates on age without considering wealth or need. I am all for subsidising all people’s fuel usage - preferably as part of a nationalisation of energy in the UK - but a system which helps those who have more than enough while ignoring younger people with nothing is not something I can get on board with.
Click to expand...

100% this. Fuel allowance should be to those who eat or heat, not just those that are old enough to get it. Believe it or not, cold doesn't discriminate, old and young get cold in an unheated home.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ......loading...... and Schrodinger's Cat
thereisonlyoneno7 said:
100% this. Fuel allowance should be to those who eat or heat, not just those that are old enough to get it. Believe it or not, cold doesn't discriminate, old and young get cold in an unheated home.
Click to expand...

I'm not that bothered about the change either but that's not strictly true. It's well-established that as people age they're less able to regulate their own body temperature so the elderly are at greater risk from low temperatures. For all the talk of climate change and global warming, even in Africa more people die from the cold than from heat.

But the controversy about the winter fuel allowance isn't about the policy itself so much as it's about the blatant hypocrisy and lies of the Labour leadership.
 
Archers Road said:
If the state pension is your only income, presumably you are still eligible for the Winter Fuel Allowance? The UK State pension is abysmal in any case. And I have to wait until I'm 67 to receive it, but I don't recall that decision (of David Cameron's) getting anything like the press attention Rachel Reeves' decision to means test the WFA continues to get.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily so.
I think the pension credit is more designed for those on the “old state pension” as against those on the newer state pension.
I have a couple of small private pensions but if I was reliant solely on the state pension, I wouldn’t qualify for it as (if I have read it correctly) I am over the limit to receive it, so I wouldn’t qualify for the winter fuel allowance either.
A single person who does qualify would have their income raised to £218 per week, but would also presumably qualify for other benefits - maybe rent support etc.
Like you I don’t recall any outcry at the time that the triple lock was sidelined but I remember it because it affected my first ever pension increase.
But it’s not just me and millions of seemingly unaware pensioners that will continue to affected every year by the decision, but it will also impact on those who aren’t yet receiving the pension because when they do, it will be considerably less than what it should be.
 
More on youth mobility from German MEP David McAllister, chair of the European parliament’s foreign affairs committee.
“The mobility of young people is crucial to our future relations. The UK government apparently does not consider re-entering the Erasmus Plus programme. This is disappointing. The UK’s withdrawal continues to have a negative impact on young people on both sides. With this in mind, I welcome the recent proposal by the European Commission to facilitate one-year travel for young people between the ages of 18 to 30 for a so-called ‘gap year’.

“The scheme is three steps removed from free movement, as it would be visa-based, time-limited, and only apply to a particular demographic cohort.

“I hope that Prime Minister Starmer will be open to such an initiative. Finding a compromise on this issue could not only benefit the freedom of movement of young people, but could add vital momentum, when negotiating other aspects of our future relations.”
 
San Tejón said:
The winter fuel allowance fallout rumbles on, and so it should because imo it’s the wrong move at the wrong time, but just for a bit of perspective I have tracked back to when I first started to receive the state pension in 2021.
My weekly pension was £198.19 in that first year and should have risen by 8.5% under the triple lock rules but this was the year when the government suspended the triple lock.
My weekly pension, for 2022/23 rose to £204.32 instead of £216.45, a weekly loss of £12.14 and an annual loss of £631.28 due to the triple lock rules being broken by the Tory government.
But it doesn’t end there.
The next years increase was 10.1% but it was based on £204.32 and not on £216.45.
So for year 2023/24 my weekly pension was £224.95 and not £238.32, a weekly loss of £13.37 and an annual loss of £695.24.
My pension for 2024/25 rose by around 6.7% on £224.95 and not on £238.32, a weekly loss of £10.57 and an annual loss of £549.64.
By my reckoning that decision to suspend the triple lock will, by April 5th 2025, have lost me £1876.16 from my pension which is double the amount I would lose in 3 years with the fuel allowance being withdrawn.
This deficit will continue ad infinitum but the majority of pensioners are unaware as to how much money they have lost as a direct result of that decision in 2021.
Figures are based on what I received and the percentage increases were taken from a website, so there might be some fluctuation, in the figures and my mathematical abilities.
Click to expand...
It’s happening to everyone. My income has effectively fallen by about 10-15k in 7 years thanks to inflation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Puck said:
I'm not that bothered about the change either but that's not strictly true. It's well-established that as people age they're less able to regulate their own body temperature so the elderly are at greater risk from low temperatures. For all the talk of climate change and global warming, even in Africa more people die from the cold than from heat.

But the controversy about the winter fuel allowance isn't about the policy itself so much as it's about the blatant hypocrisy and lies of the Labour leadership.
Click to expand...

Could you point out to me the exact promises they are reneging on? In all honesty, I have rarely seen an election won on so few real promises. I also don't understand why this is hypocritical?

To me it all feels inline with the Tory-Lite version of Labour most people knew they were getting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Schrodinger's Cat
......loading...... said:
Could you point out to me the exact promises they are reneging on? In all honesty, I have rarely seen an election won on so few real promises. I also don't understand why this is hypocritical?

To me it all feels inline with the Tory-Lite version of Labour most people knew they were getting.
Click to expand...
The couple of examples most relevant to the discussion about the winter fuel allowance and energy prices that was happening here would be:

In opposition Labour spoke many times about how awful it would be if the Tories removed the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. As recently as 1st May Starmer asked Rishi Sunak at PMQs to “rule out taking pensioners’ winter fuel payments off them”. There's hypocrisy.

Labour have also promised multiple times since 2022 that they would reduce energy bills. Their manifesto said "We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good." Energy prices have just increased by 10%. There's a lie.

Another example of Starmer's hypocrisy would be the way he's criticised Tory MPs for accepting donations (Boris's wallpaper etc) only for us to discover that since 2019 he's received more freebies than any other MP.

I also think there's a hypocrisy to saying you wouldn't use private health care to "jump the queue" if a member of your family was ill, at the same time as you've accepted a free stay in a luxury central London penthouse so your son can revise for his GCSEs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: thereisonlyoneno7
Archers Road said:
If the state pension is your only income, presumably you are still eligible for the Winter Fuel Allowance? The UK State pension is abysmal in any case. And I have to wait until I'm 67 to receive it, but I don't recall that decision (of David Cameron's) getting anything like the press attention Rachel Reeves' decision to means test the WFA continues to get.
Click to expand...
Not in Spain as the averge winter temperature is warmer than the UK!
 
Puck said:
The couple of examples most relevant to the discussion about the winter fuel allowance and energy prices that was happening here would be:

In opposition Labour spoke many times about how awful it would be if the Tories removed the winter fuel allowance from pensioners. As recently as 1st May Starmer asked Rishi Sunak at PMQs to “rule out taking pensioners’ winter fuel payments off them”. There's hypocrisy.

Labour have also promised multiple times since 2022 that they would reduce energy bills. Their manifesto said "We will save families hundreds of pounds on their bills, not just in the short term, but for good." Energy prices have just increased by 10%. There's a lie.

Another example of Starmer's hypocrisy would be the way he's criticised Tory MPs for accepting donations (Boris's wallpaper etc) only for us to discover that since 2019 he's received more freebies than any other MP.

I also think there's a hypocrisy to saying you wouldn't use private health care to "jump the queue" if a member of your family was ill, at the same time as you've accepted a free stay in a luxury central London penthouse so your son can revise for his GCSEs.
Click to expand...

Just for clarity, your hypocrisy is one question in a PMQs? Isn't it normal to quiz the opposition on their plans? I don't think those quizzes are electoral promises. I have seen Tory questions one week and then the adoption of Labour ideas they were belittling the next week. That is pretty normal in a functional government.

The other things don't relate to the winter fuel allowance, which you stated is proof of the lies and hypocrisy of Labour. Again, where are these lies relating to winter fuel allowance? I would point out that the bit you (disingenuously?) left out of that promise to reduce fuel bills was by 2030.

I guess lots of people being dishonest around here.
 
Im not sure I read anything in Puck's messages around electoral promises being broken.

I guess there are lots of people loading dishonesty into their posts around here.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: It'sOnlyAGame
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back