Pensioner bonds extended

antrobus

Graham_Devon wrote: »

....And why do you always have to have these pointless semantics arguments?....

Because you keep making statements based on a pointless semantic distinction?

Just a thought.

kabayiri

I've had a sneak peek at the Conservative mainfesto and a few policies "neutral" to all age groups caught my eye :

- negative VAT on Werthers Originals
- free rich Tea biscuits whenever you buy tea in a cafe
- wagon wheels to be restored to their original size ("in my day")
- outlawing of baseball caps and hoodies when worn in public on health grounds
- more Ann Robinson; Mary Berry; and Esther Ranzen on telly
- standardisation of batteries going into remotes to help avoid "buying the wrong ones"

All very balanced if you ask me

Sapphire

It is you who cannot construct a valid argument – by lumping all pensioners together instead of stating that you are referring to wealthy pensioners, if that is indeed what you are doing. Contrary to the propaganda, a substantial proportion of pensioners do not have final salary pensions and a great many are just 'making do', even though they may have small amounts of savings (pensioner bonds could help such people a little, especially given the currently very low interest rates). I know this because I know such people. If you said that benefits should not be extended to comparatively affluent pensioners – say those with an income of around £30,000 p.a. or more – then I could agree with you. However, you and others like you lump all pensioners together in your tirades against older people, while conveniently overlooking the fact that most such people have been productive members of society for 40–50 years, and many continue to pay taxes. It's not pleasant to read these offensive attacks.

I'm sure when you are elderly you will expect 'benefits' of all kinds. You should be careful what you wish for in your attacks.

N1AK wrote: »

Can you refer to a single post on here suggesting that ALL pensioners are rich, or that any measure to help poorer pensioners are bad? I doubt it; you're just constructing a straw-man to attack because you can't construct a valid counter-argument to the points actually being made.

ruggedtoast

Labour are promising to increase funding of all Sure Start centres and will be providing childcare through the scheme.

Sure Start is one aspect the last Labour gov brought in that has legitimately made an enormous difference to the lives and probable life outcomes of all British children, and not just poor ones. It was about the first initiative since the 60s that has genuinely proven to be reducing inequality in the UK and stimulating upwards mobility of the working class.

The Tories shamefully, and predictably, slashed funding for Sure Start in favour of giveaways for bankers and wealthy boomers.

My vote is going with Labour.

mystic_trev

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Labour are promising to increase funding of all Sure Start centres and will be providing childcare through the scheme.

I believe the Tory's will have a similar scheme to help Boomers by increasing funding to Old Fart centres.

IronWolf

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Labour are promising to increase funding of all Sure Start centres and will be providing childcare through the scheme.

Sure Start is one aspect the last Labour gov brought in that has legitimately made an enormous difference to the lives and probable life outcomes of all British children, and not just poor ones. It was about the first initiative since the 60s that has genuinely proven to be reducing inequality in the UK and stimulating upwards mobility of the working class.

The Tories shamefully, and predictably, slashed funding for Sure Start in favour of giveaways for bankers and wealthy boomers.

My vote is going with Labour.

Local councils have control over Sure Start centres. Blame your council if the funding was slashed, not the national government.

In fact many councils cut funding despite having the funds to keep them open but they didnt want to slash the Councillor allowances.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Labour are promising to increase funding of all Sure Start centres and will be providing childcare through the scheme.

Sure Start is one aspect the last Labour gov brought in that has legitimately made an enormous difference to the lives and probable life outcomes of all British children, and not just poor ones. It was about the first initiative since the 60s that has genuinely proven to be reducing inequality in the UK and stimulating upwards mobility of the working class.

The Tories shamefully, and predictably, slashed funding for Sure Start in favour of giveaways for bankers and wealthy boomers.

My vote is going with Labour.

what evidence is there that the scheme made any difference?
is there any evidence that inequality is falling?

ruggedtoast

IronWolf wrote: »

Local councils have control over Sure Start centres. Blame your council if the funding was slashed, not the national government.

In fact many councils cut funding despite having the funds to keep them open but they didnt want to slash the Councillor allowances.

Yes. I shall blame my Conservative county council for passing on the funding cuts from the Conservative government to the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, again.

Many of the recipients of this boomer welfare train have no need of it. Why are we giving winter housing allowances, state funded savings vehicles, and free bus passes to people with a detached modern double glazed house and two cars in the driveway? Oh it's because the government wants to bribe them to put them back in power.

It's morally wrong it's financially wrong and it's just obscenely bloody unfair. The Tories are kicking disabled people out of council houses for having a spare box room, and telling people with emphysema who can't walk that their benefits are being stopped as they should be working. Meanwhile they are handing out wads of non means tested cash to people who don't even slightly need it.

Generali

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Labour are promising to increase funding of all Sure Start centres and will be providing childcare through the scheme.

Sure Start is one aspect the last Labour gov brought in that has legitimately made an enormous difference to the lives and probable life outcomes of all British children, and not just poor ones. It was about the first initiative since the 60s that has genuinely proven to be reducing inequality in the UK and stimulating upwards mobility of the working class.

The Tories shamefully, and predictably, slashed funding for Sure Start in favour of giveaways for bankers and wealthy boomers.

My vote is going with Labour.

I lived in a part of London that had a Sure Start centre. It was full of aspirant immigrants and middle class whites for the most part. The section of the white working class that don't seem bothered by education are unsurprisingly not that bothered about pre-school education either.

Obviously anecdote isn't data but ISTR reading a couple of studies when the Generalissimos were tiny that support my views.

purch

Generali wrote: »

Obviously anecdote isn't data

Might as well shut this place down then :eek: