Budget 2018

badmemory

I'm just amazed he didn't remove the triple lock on state pensions. Or is that one of the things that we are going to find in the small print.

Filo25

badmemory wrote: »

I'm just amazed he didn't remove the triple lock on state pensions. Or is that one of the things that we are going to find in the small print.

They are such a key demographic especially for the Conservatives that I don't think that can be backed down from at any stage in the forseeable future, especially with Labour now committing to it as well

Thrugelmir

badmemory wrote: »

I'm just amazed he didn't remove the triple lock on state pensions. Or is that one of the things that we are going to find in the small print.

Was a 2017 election manifesto commitment to remove in 2020. As part of the deal with the DUP the proposal was dropped.

woolly_wombat

DairyQueen wrote: »

Young voters are generally ignorant of 'old labour' and the disastrous events of the 1970s under those political regimes. Many think that JC represents something 'new'. They imagine a world of wonderful equality where everyone eats Ambrosia and nobody has to pay for it.

Ah yes! Stagflation, "the pound in your pocket" devaluation and the Winter of Discontent following the IMF loan crisis.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/imf-crisis.htm

Unhappy times, but it's amazing how even some older folk still seem to remember the 1970s through rose tinted specs!

kidmugsy

Zola. wrote: »

How is the UK ever supposed to pay back debt when its in the trillions?

This is a part of economics I just don't understand, does anyone?

Why on earth do you worry about paying it back? The only case I've ever heard of of a substantial nation paying back its debts was the UK after the Napoleonic Wars - and it took many, many decades.

What matters is that the country enjoys enough confidence that it can rollover its debts - that people will lend it enough capital to let it pay off the old debts. This confidence might be harder to sustain if debts increase faster than (say) GDP, and then the new debt costs more, and then the whole problem snowballs.

Of course, in the end all nations fail and all government debt is reneged on. There are, apparently, only three countries with a seriously long history of not reneging: us, Sweden, and one I can't remember - Switzerland, maybe? Or maybe it's only two.

bonnyrigger

Yes because life got so much better in the early 80's under the Thatcher. Decimated manufacturing and 3 million unemployed ringing any bells?

Malthusian

Silvertabby wrote: »

Corbyn will buy votes by pretending to give in to the ridiculous WASPI demands. And that many women voters (not me !) will be stupid enough to believe him.

The leadership of WASPI, whatever they might say in public, would rather eat their horses than vote Labour. And the rampantly misogynist elements within Labour would not stand for a £30,000+ bung to mostly Tory-voting women. Hard-working comrades' money going to terfs? No way Josephine.

WASPI barely musters a few hundred people now anyway.

thriftytracey

Filo25 wrote: »

I know there are costs to it, but I think its good to continue to increase ahead of inflation at present.

If only because I think work should always pay, and if you work full time I think its only right you can expect to live on that, and hopefully it somewhat reduces the hefty amount of in-work benefits that we pay.

But clearly work doesn't pay - hence working tax credits. But hey its OK to subsidise the corporates posting millions in profit.

Spreadsheetman

Malthusian wrote: »

The leadership of WASPI, whatever they might say in public, would rather eat their horses than vote Labour. And the rampantly misogynist elements within Labour would not stand for a £30,000+ bung to mostly Tory-voting women. Hard-working comrades' money going to terfs? No way Josephine.

WASPI barely musters a few hundred people now anyway.

There was someone trying to spin it on Radio4 in the last week or so. The interviewer did state the announcement was in 1993 and question the interviewee about their claimed surprise when they reached 60 recently.

All the interviewee could manage was a feeble excuse about being too busy working and raising a family plus saying the change was only discussed in the broadsheet papers anyway. A "dog ate my homework" excuse if ever I heard one.

Thrugelmir

bonnyrigger wrote: »

Yes because life got so much better in the early 80's under the Thatcher. Decimated manufacturing and 3 million unemployed ringing any bells?

More of us remember the likes of Derek ‘Red Robbo’ Robinson .

The most notorious union leader in the history of British car-making at the height of his infamy, a man credited with causing 523 walkouts at British Leyland between 1978 and 1979, costing an estimated £200 million in lost production.

:eek:

Likewise secondary picketing.

If people think railways are chaotic now. Try the 70's experience. People voted for change. As simply got fed up with the various Union's antics. No fun waiting at a rural station after work with no idea if a train would ever turn up. Resorted to hitchhiking on a frequent basis.