Election campaign kicks off

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

You can hardly call state pension of £113 a week massive income

You're right, and I didn't, however it's incredibly generous next to JSA for under 25s at £57.35.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I see very little evidence of "increased benefits" for pensioners although they seem to be inflation protected, I agree. There is not much "cutting" of benefits, but more a deliberate failure to index link them. Most people call these "cuts" but I don't see them that way.

So you don't see it as "cuts" because it only decreased because of inflation, yet you don't see increased pensions even though they've increased faster than inflation? I'm not sure there's a more self-defeating position than that.

Pensions have gone up by 3.8% pa since 2008. That's higher than inflation, and vastly higher than wages. The government is happily targeting the poor by using limiting benefit increases to roughly the same as wage increases during the same time period, yet is adamant to keep the state pension going up faster no matter how wealthy the pensioner is.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

We must not forget, also, that recessions come and go, as do the 'good' times. Now a pensioner who has served his/her working life generally has no further recourse to income in the bad times.

I've never found this argument overly persuasive. Pensioners are more likely to vote than average, and have been able to influence elections for 45+ years, they don't in my opinion have some god given right to protection from the consequences of those choices.

Why should a wealthy pensioner be protected from austerity when they are more responsible, for the financial mess than someone who's just left school who is being hit hardest by it.

N1AK

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

It wasn't new labour that landed us in this mess, it was chance that resulted in labour being in power when the global credit bubble burst happened. I don't support labour by the way!

It was Labour that landed us in this mess. The previous conservative budgeted for a surplus, Labour followed those plans initially and we had a surplus. They then increased public spending hugely, so that they continued to run a budget deficit through one of the longest periods of economic growth in our history.

That meant that when the crisis hit rather than having built up an emergency pot during the good times, they'd spent all the savings and half the credit card limit.

Would the conservatives have done better? We'll never know, but I'm inclined to think that they'd have kept government spending a little lower through the boom period. I couldn't guess whether we'd be in a better position overall though.

TickersPlaysPop

MP's get £160/week for groceries

Let's target the real scroungers ..... please?

TickersPlaysPop

A very rapid mobilisation of the previously apathetic disaffected young will happen and change this country for the better. Social media will be the tool for this, and it can happen very quickly.

TickersPlaysPop

N1AK wrote: »

It was Labour that landed us in this mess. The previous conservative budgeted for a surplus, Labour followed those plans initially and we had a surplus. They then increased public spending hugely, so that they continued to run a budget deficit through one of the longest periods of economic growth in our history.

That meant that when the crisis hit rather than having built up an emergency pot during the good times, they'd spent all the savings and half the credit card limit.

Would the conservatives have done better? We'll never know, but I'm inclined to think that they'd have kept government spending a little lower through the boom period. I couldn't guess whether we'd be in a better position overall though.

Do you have the figures for the deficit sum during labours watch? And what is that compared to the huge debt the government took on to stop the banks imploding?

Thrugelmir

N1AK wrote: »

Would the conservatives have done better?

If the Allies had lost the battle for Normandy. Then history could be so very different.

More a smokescreen to distract. Mr Brown's redistributive polices failed. End of story. Time to move on.

N1AK

TickersPlaysPop wrote: »

Do you have the figures for the deficit sum during labours watch? And what is that compared to the huge debt the government took on to stop the banks imploding?

You are aware that the government that took on a huge debt to stop the banks imploding was the Labour government? Thus that was on their watch.

The Labour government increased public spending pa by £200,000,000,000 (billion) between 2001 and 2008. About £25 billion a year. The current government is limiting this to £16 billion a year, even including all the additional welfare costs from the crisis and debt interest. That's a gigantic difference in both actual and relative terms.

Generali

Thrugelmir wrote: »

You can't put a price on some ones life.

However it's something I'm happy to pay even if I never benefit directly myself.

Given that health resources are finite, ultimately you have to put a price on someone's life.

TickersPlaysPop

Have you worked for a government spin outfit?!

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think you answered the question, no obligation to at all.

Do you know as at the 2008 crash and government decision to borrow to secure the bank system... how much the government debt was before borrowing to fix the banks? And also, how much did the government borrow to fix the banks?

I thought it was generally accepted that global credit bubble burst was not due to individual governments, but due to the capitalist and free but loosely regulated financial system that was forced (some say they had a choice and moral responsiblity and obligation) by competitive forces to continually make increasing profit and create 'growth'.

But we still allow the banks to continue their reign over us and run the obsurd money creation system via debts. Money creation should be linked to assets and products and value added services, not debt, which accelerates us into boom and bust.

Thrugelmir

Generali wrote: »

Given that health resources are finite, ultimately you have to put a price on someone's life.

You're right. At any time they could have switched off the ventilator, the dialysis machine or any of the 14 drug pumps that were keeping her alive. As they took her to a point where the body had no work to do except fight the infection. Every 5 minutes was a hairs breath improvement in her chances of living. But they didn't. As the ICU was staffed by true professionals who cared. Their faith was rewarded.

Until you've lived the experience................