ICM

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2019 1:03:28 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Nov 25, 2019 21:38:42 GMT mboy said:

The astronomical pensions bribe is going to be very tempting for a lot of people who know they will never have to pay for it...

I look at the Labour manifesto (and let's face it, aspects of all the manifestos) and see little offer to me other than the chance to retire past 67, all the while paying for younger and older people to enjoy benefits I will never be able to have even though my taxes have and will pay for them.

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

[Devil Wincarnate]

Nov 26, 2019 18:31:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 26, 2019 1:03:28 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I look at the Labour manifesto (and let's face it, aspects of all the manifestos) and see little offer to me other than the chance to retire past 67, all the while paying for younger and older people to enjoy benefits I will never be able to have even though my taxes have and will pay for them.

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

I pay income tax, employer NI, employee NI, corporation tax and collect Vat. But let me know what more you want.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Nov 26, 2019 18:31:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 26, 2019 1:03:28 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I look at the Labour manifesto (and let's face it, aspects of all the manifestos) and see little offer to me other than the chance to retire past 67, all the while paying for younger and older people to enjoy benefits I will never be able to have even though my taxes have and will pay for them.

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 26, 2019 18:47:57 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:31:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

If I'm not mistaken, the Labour manifesto includes cancelling old student debt.

I agree that what you contend on pensions looks likely.

[Old Fashioned Leftie]

Nov 26, 2019 18:47:57 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:31:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

Absolutely understand the point you make, I too will have to work until I am 67 although I do not have tuition fees to pay back (I studied part time many years ago and my course fees for the year were £240!). For me if a policy is wrong I am happy for it to change irrespective of whether it benefits me directly. I do not want to work until I am 67, neither do I want others to work until they are 67 - but simply because I have to work until that age would not stop me from supporting reducing the retirement age for others.

[curiousliberal]

Nov 26, 2019 19:00:41 GMT Old Fashioned Leftie said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:47:57 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

Absolutely understand the point you make, I too will have to work until I am 67 although I do not have tuition fees to pay back (I studied part time many years ago and my course fees for the year were £240!). For me if a policy is wrong I am happy for it to change irrespective of whether it benefits me directly. I do not want to work until I am 67, neither do I want others to work until they are 67 - but simply because I have to work until that age would not stop me from supporting reducing the retirement age for others.

I think W's arguing this is pretty close to a zero-sum game - that keeping the SPA below what it should be means it will have to be above where it otherwise would have been for us. That is to say, keeping it at 65 when it should be at 67 means that when it should be, say, 68, it's actually at 69. 

We should be raising it towards 75 anyway, and more of our health budget should be invested in studying ageing itself.

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2019 18:44:31 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:31:12 GMT @priceofdawn said:

contributing to the system to tge benefit of wider society. What a novel idea

I pay income tax, employer NI, employee NI, corporation tax and collect Vat. But let me know what more you want.

as do i

[Pete Whitehead]

Nov 26, 2019 19:17:32 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:44:31 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I pay income tax, employer NI, employee NI, corporation tax and collect Vat. But let me know what more you want.

as do i

You pay corporation tax and employer NI ?

[Devil Wincarnate]

Nov 26, 2019 19:00:41 GMT Old Fashioned Leftie said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:47:57 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

Absolutely understand the point you make, I too will have to work until I am 67 although I do not have tuition fees to pay back (I studied part time many years ago and my course fees for the year were £240!). For me if a policy is wrong I am happy for it to change irrespective of whether it benefits me directly. I do not want to work until I am 67, neither do I want others to work until they are 67 - but simply because I have to work until that age would not stop me from supporting reducing the retirement age for others.

I have no problem with reducing the retirement age, but there has to be some fairness here.  Likewise, I also do not expect a policy to benefit me directly.  What I don't expect is a barrage of policies from all parties which seem designed to increase the tax burden on everyone between about 22-65 (well, the latter being a moving goalpost), whilst insisting that we should be grateful for the opportunity.

I'm put in mind of an argument I ended up in at a previous employer.  The final salary scheme was being changed, and it was expected that final salary pensioners would have to make a greater contribution as the scheme was getting rather expensive.  One such person ranted that we younger employees weren't backing them up on this, for it to be pointed out that the company had increased our pension age partly to cover their pensions, and that we could never have such a generous scheme.  Said ranter said:
"Not my fault you can't have our deal.  Not my problem you have to pay for us".  Went down like a lead balloon.

[Devil Wincarnate]

Nov 26, 2019 19:17:32 GMT @priceofdawn said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:44:31 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

I pay income tax, employer NI, employee NI, corporation tax and collect Vat. But let me know what more you want.

as do i

Then what was the point of the pointlessly snide comment to start with?

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2019 19:21:19 GMT Pete Whitehead said:

Nov 26, 2019 19:17:32 GMT @priceofdawn said:

as do i

You pay corporation tax and employer NI ?

my mistake i used to

[Deleted]

Nov 26, 2019 19:27:39 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Nov 26, 2019 19:17:32 GMT @priceofdawn said:

as do i

Then what was the point of the pointlessly snide comment to start with?

was not meant as snide

[Davıd Boothroyd]

Nov 26, 2019 19:00:33 GMT curiousliberal said:

Nov 26, 2019 18:47:57 GMT Devil Wincarnate said:

Whilst I am sure your flippant response sounded great in your head, it didn't address my point at all. Which is that my generation is being asked to pay for benefits that we cannot enjoy. Including paying for free tuition fees when I had to pay, and working to 67 (at least) to pay for others to retire at an earlier age.

If I'm not mistaken, the Labour manifesto includes cancelling old student debt.

You are indeed mistaken. The manifesto makes no such pledge.

[Deleted]

[cogload]

Static bruv. This election is over (famous last words.. lol).

[curiousliberal]

Dec 2, 2019 14:45:26 GMT cogload said:

Static bruv. This election is over (famous last words.. lol).

Less of a BxP vote to squeeze in marginals, so not quite static.

Edit: on second thoughts, the Greens and Plaid also drop by one point each. It's mostly churn, then.

[lancastrian]

Dec 2, 2019 14:45:26 GMT cogload said:

Static bruv. This election is over (famous last words.. lol).

Picking out ICM's polls about 10 days before the election;

In 2017 they had the Tories 12 points up
In 2015 the Tories were 3 up
In 2010 they were 3 ahead of the Lib Dems, 5 ahead of Labour

How different would the last decade have been if those were election results?

[Vibe]

Dec 2, 2019 21:29:30 GMT lancastrian said:

Dec 2, 2019 14:45:26 GMT cogload said:

Static bruv. This election

is over (famous last words.. lol).

Picking out ICM's polls about 10 days before the election;

In 2017 they had the Tories 12 points up
In 2015 the Tories were 3 up
In 2010 they were 3 ahead of the Lib Dems, 5 ahead of Labour

How different would the last decade have been if those were election results?

Maybe they are shit pollsters 😂😂


All 3 of the above returned a Conservative PM, so maybe Boris will at least be PM. The majority is far less certain.

[Deleted]

Dec 2, 2019 23:17:38 GMT Vibe said:

Dec 2, 2019 21:29:30 GMT lancastrian said:

Picking out ICM's polls about 10 days before the election;

In 2017 they had the Tories 12 points up
In 2015 the Tories were 3 up
In 2010 they were 3 ahead of the Lib Dems, 5 ahead of Labour

How different would the last decade have been if those were election results?

Maybe they are shit pollsters 😂😂


All 3 of the above returned a Conservative PM, so maybe Boris will at least be PM. The majority is far less certain.

the Guardian have discomtinued their regular commission dating back to 1989. If this goes wrong it could be the end for ICM

[Andrew_S]