Tories target the vulnerable, again.

ukcarper

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Try 10.5 million pensioners

Just an example, just wanted to show principal with out enormous figures.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

ukcarper wrote: »

Just an example, just wanted to show principal with out enormous figures.

billions & billions & billions & billions & up to another 18 billions

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I know it's partly a tory policy, and you are a labour man, but seriously, whats not to like about this?
.

BTW, unfortunately I have voted the same as you at recent elections

mostlycheerful

“the stuff we have been crying out for for ages (mainly cutting wastage)”

No, sadly the 30% to 95% wastage of everything they do will likely continue unabated as they apparently have failed to take note of Philip Green’s recent advice about how to save £20 billion by using a bit of intelligence and common sense instead of the current situation of lots of ignorant numpties who know nothing about business or economies of scale mindlessly wasting vast amounts of taxpayers’ money. They often haven’t got a clue and just guess it from first principles. And no one is controlling them, despite vast amounts of money being wasted on bean counters who are supposed to know what they’re doing but patently don’t.

Green made a lot of sound points about the necessity for bulk buying and coordinated procurement but, as he so cogently pointed out, civil servants are mostly not at all business minded and are mostly incapable of doing anything efficiently at all. Studies since the 1960s and indeed probably a lot earlier as well, have repeatedly exposed the gross endemic waste by government and civil service but still the ignorant thick unbusinessminded leaders and all the rubbish little second rate wage slaves make the same mistakes over and over again and never learn. And get away with it, ad nauseam ad infinitum.

It’s a fundamental mistake to have a country run by ignorant politicians and low grade office workers when it should only ever be run by successful knowledgeable business people. Britain is a business, not a playground for amateur second raters to run into the ground. As Green said, if he ever ran any of his companies the way these appallingly stupid thickies run the country they’d go bust overnight.

And Britain is on the edge of going bust, the credit crunch recession has been afflicting everyone except the rich since August 2007 and is still badly affecting a lot of people. What an incredible appalling failure of government. Britain is actually quite rich but the wealth has been allowed to be ripped off and wasted. And it’s still going on. Amazing.

But as the government gets away with extorting taxes from citizens and is not accountable, except once every five years or so, and as citizens fail to fight back and stop the rot the appalling failure continues and will do so for the foreseeable future.

What should be done is that the whole country from top to bottom should be run by the CBI (Confederation of British Industry) and the FSB (Federation of Small Businesses) and all their member companies and individuals along business principles and all the useless ignorant negligent incompetent numpties currently making such a spectacular mess and shambles of everything that they have no understanding of should be chucked in the bin where they belong.

Could it happen? Maybe.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Let’s say there are 1 million pensioners, the cost of admin would be £54million if Stevej figures are right.

The difference between basic state pension and £140 is about £42 week = £2184 per year so 500,000 get extra = £1092 million so how is that self financing

This ignores the savings from the retirement age being put up to 66.

The savings mentioned, to make it cost neutral, don't.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This ignores the savings from the retirement age being put up to 66.

The savings mentioned, to make it cost neutral, don't.

Thats got nothing to do with this.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Thats got nothing to do with this.

Yes it has. Even the BBC reported it as a trade off for working longer.

Sure, that was one announcement, and this is another, but to say the two are not linked in any way and to exclude it from any of the costings isn't really a true representation of a possible pensions overhaul.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes it has. Even the BBC reported it as a trade off for working longer.

Sure, that was one announcement, and this is another, but to say the two are not linked in any way and to exclude it from any of the costings isn't really a true representation of a possible pensions overhaul.

The pension age increase was part of spending review this is not.

JP45

StevieJ wrote: »

This seems a policy to appeal to the middle class Tory voters can't see what the very poor are getting out of it apart from no means test.

I doubt that it will appeal much to the younger middle class Tory voter but it will certainly appeal to the elderly Tory voter. It's in the same mould as Cameron's pre-election pledges on free Bus Passes and the Winter fuel allowance.

And the reason for this apparent outbreak of generosity towards the elderly? Well as a recent article in The Independent pointed out:

Pensioners are the most avid supporters of the Conservative Party. At the last election, 44 per cent of them voted Tory, compared with just 30 per cent of the youngest age group. And they are much more likely to turn out and vote: 76 per cent of the over-65s voted in May, compared with just 44 per cent of the under-25s.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The pension age increase was part of spending review this is not.

Erm ok.

Splitting hairs, I feel. It's a cost saving, whichever way you put it, whether one was included in the spending review or not.