RPI to CPI Early Day Motion 1032

bendix

StevieJ wrote: »

Strange here is a view from Popper, what is strange is you appearing to be one of the most intolerant people I have encountered on these boards

On the contrary. The Popperian role on this particular thread is to encourage discussion and debate and stop the thread from being a set of views which mutually support each other, with no challenge or dissent, something very dear to Popper's central philosophical argument.

Views which support each other and allow no contradiction or refutation lead to ignorance, tyranny and bad knowledge. Only by challenging conventional 'truths' . such as those on this thread . does one test to see if they have any validity.

Ergo, myself and Mr Slaphead are doing this thread a service.

But you knew that already, didnt you, Stevieboy?

bendix

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Finally a definition of "forum" - a meeting or opportunity for an exchange of views.

If I'm the Karl Popper of this thread, i humbly present to you the father of seeking truth and enlightenment through discussion, Mr Old Slaphead, MSE's very own Socrates.

teacher_retired

Bendix I accept your view with regard to your right of speech and always will. It is just that I thought this thread was to update us on the specific issue of EDM 1032.

StevieJ

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

If wages, benefits, pensions etc are indexed to a lower inflation rate that means public spending comes down & British industry becomes more competitive - no ?

As I said the ones without a CPI pension will benefit BTW I think many workers would be joyous to receive a CPI payrise at the moment.

Ripoff_2

Bendix, everyone is aware of your views on this issue and there is no point is winding people up anymore, it just clogs the forum in unwanted and unhelpful comments. If you have something useful to say then fine, constructive sensible arguments and opinions are to be encouraged but you do yourself no favours with some of your comments.

bendix

Ripoff wrote: »

Bendix, everyone is aware of your views on this issue and there is no point is winding people up anymore, it just clogs the forum in unwanted and unhelpful comments. If you have something useful to say then fine, constructive sensible arguments and opinions are to be encouraged but you do yourself no favours with some of your comments.

Thanks for your insights Ripofff. Duly ignored.

Your definition of constructive sensible arguments seem to be those that support your view.

Mine dont, so they're dismissed as disruptive.

Like StevieJ and his Popper quote, I'm intolerant of such intolerance to contrary views.

MEY_3

Old Slaphead - Quote: "If wages, benefits, pensions etc are indexed to a lower inflation rate that means public spending comes down & British industry becomes more competitive - no ?"

A big word "if". It certainly means we all get poorer faster unless the index used accurately measures inflation as it reduces purchasing power. You still haven't told me why we should bother with any inflation indexing at all, for anything, given your logic? In fact, you must by definition believe there should be no indexation or that it should be totally arbitrary and as low as possible. Inflation indexation only has any point if as accurate as possible.

The debate only wanders off topic when the "disapprovers" deliberately take it that way.

We had RPI. We were told we would have RPI in retirement. We are now being told we are not getting RPI in retirement under a dubious pretext. We are assured it is nothing to do with the financial crisis, but because its a more accurate measure. That is deception in my book, and as so many different folk in various schemes are affected that suggests it's not a fantasy made up by a few. So the EDM and exhortation to back it is a call to try to resist such a move by those directly affected. What is in dispute about that, please, and how is your view that no-one should have RPI relevant to that point?
As you continue to repeat your viewpoint, often extending it to other areas, I suppose I will just have to keep repeating mine.

DiggerUK

Ripoff wrote: »

Regarding the Government changing indexing for pensions from RPI to the lesser CPI....

Hopefully a good turnout on March 26th will make it easier to get the government to back down.
After the courage shown in Tunisia and Egypt for change, it would be odd if people here got frightened away from standing up for justice.

If a private pension company changed conditions in a similar way, then everybody would be shouting "pension mis selling scandal"

Old_Slaphead

MEY wrote: »

A big word "if". It certainly means we all get poorer faster unless the index used accurately measures inflation as it reduces purchasing power. You still haven't told me why we should bother with any inflation indexing at all, for anything, given your logic? In fact, you must by definition believe there should be no indexation or that it should be totally arbitrary and as low as possible. Inflation indexation only has any point if as accurate as possible.

The answer is yes - but I won't be drawn any further on this as it's off topic

The debate only wanders off topic when the "disapprovers" deliberately take it that way.

From my standpoint I completely disagree (although I can't possibly know what others motives are)

We had RPI. We were told we would have RPI in retirement. We are now being told we are not getting RPI in retirement under a dubious pretext. We are assured it is nothing to do with the financial crisis, but because its a more accurate measure. That is deception in my book, and as so many different folk in various schemes are affected that suggests it's not a fantasy made up by a few. So the EDM and exhortation to back it is a call to try to resist such a move by those directly affected. What is in dispute about that, please, and how is your view that no-one should have RPI relevant to that point?

You have regaled me with your views many times and I accept their perceived validity.

BTW when did I say no-one should have RPI?

As you continue to repeat your viewpoint, often extending it to other areas, I suppose I will just have to keep repeating mine.

Please be aware that I am usually addressing specific issues raised by specific posters. They are not always intended for your comment - though I do, in the interest of debate, welcome them

Interested_Taxpayer

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

To offer a balanced view, that's all.

A balanced view Old Slaphead. You must be having a laugh :rotfl:
How can you do that with a large chip on your shoulder? You would fall over. I wonder if Socrates had the same problem? I doubt it.