[dart in the crossbar]

isleaiw1, on 20 April 2024 - 07:18 AM, said:

That makes a lot of sense. I presume there is a breakdown of the age groups of the extra million that supports that?

thanks. Data from 2022 indicates that there were 875,000 60 year olds. Numbers then dropped by about 30,000 for each subsequent year up to 65 year olds. Speculating that the population numbers haven't fallen since then. And speculating that 50% or more of these people were female. Suggests that there are about 2.4 million women who would have been classed as pensioners pre pension age change but aren't now. As to whether or not they are in work I don't know, but if they aren't in work they will now be classed as 'economically inactive' whereas in the past they would have been classed as pensioners.

I can't be bothered to do the mopre precise maths for men, but working on simply a one-year change in pension age from 65 to 66 that would bring an additional 350,000 or so men into the frame for potentially being 'economically inactive'. If correct, that gives 2.75 million (who would have been pensioners) in the 'economic activity' mix.

Obviously this isn't the entirely of those who are classed as 'economically inactive'; it's got to have made an impact though.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

This woman is fast becoming the latest David Icke: https://www.mirror.c...rtgage-32635632

Apparently the chaos inflicted by her 'Kwar crash' budget was all the BoE governor's fault. A bloke she never actually met, Which was, of course, someone else's fault. Again. Just as anti-Semitic tropes in the new book she hilariously peddles at every opportunity are, well, we all know what comes next, don't we.

She is, bizarrely, one of Labour's greatest assets...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 21 April 2024 - 09:03 AM

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Another one bites the dust... https://www.bbc.co.u...litics-68870117

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

So today's studio touring stooge was Andrew Mitchell, who repeatedly supported the Rwanda fiasco to the point of claiming that country is "arguably safer than London".

Which I'm sure will come as news to all the Rwandans to whom his own government give asylum every year.

But hold on a minute - isn't that the very same Andrew Mitchell who only two years ago dubbed the scheme "immoral, impracticle, ineffective and expensive"?

https://conservative...-and-expensive/

https://www.huffingt...4b0723f8017ba80

Never mind though as he's merely some junior minister, and it's not as if, say, the Home Secretary would be so critical, is it.

Errr... https://www.theguard...y-batshit-video

Blimey, good job ol' 'wishy-washy' Rishi is talking tough to back up his long term support for the policy, then.

Oh, wait... https://www.bbc.com/...litics-67905741

But of course they'll conveniently forget these blatant hypocrisies to blame Labour for preventing 'Cruella' Braverman's "dream" of seeing vulnarable people - including Afghans who helped our forces - getting a one way ticket to Africa in a House of Lords where...they have no majority to do so...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 22 April 2024 - 05:49 PM

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 22 April 2024 - 05:46 PM, said:

So today's studio touring stooge was Andrew Mitchell, who repeatedly supported the Rwanda fiasco to the point of claiming that country is "arguably safer than London".

Which I'm sure will come as news to all the Rwandans to whom his own government give asylum every year.

But hold on a minute - isn't that the very same Andrew Mitchell who only two years ago dubbed the scheme "immoral, impracticle, ineffective and expensive"?

https://conservative...-and-expensive/

https://www.huffingt...4b0723f8017ba80

Never mind though as he's merely some junior minister, and it's not as if, say, the Home Secretary would be so critical, is it.

Errr... https://www.theguard...y-batshit-video

Blimey, good job ol' 'wishy-washy' Rishi is talking tough to back up his long term support for the policy, then.

Oh, wait... https://www.bbc.com/...litics-67905741

But of course they'll conveniently forget these blatant hypocrisies to blame Labour for preventing 'Cruella' Braverman's "dream" of seeing vulnarable people - including Afghans who helped our forces - getting a one way ticket to Africa in a House of Lords where...they have no majority to do so...

Just seen Yvette Cooper's piece on the scheme in the Telegraph.... its OK, its all under control. All we need is new counter terror style powers, new international intelligence sharing agreements and new cross border police working with European partners.... then we can clear the asylum backlog with a new fast track system for safe countries, end hotel use and set up a new Returns and Enforcement Unit to return those with no right to be here...

No I dont agree with the Rwanda plan, but if she thinks its that easy then I look forward to seeing it happen.

All sorted by this time next year then.... and apparently all that will cost the same as the Rwanda policy.

Not anti Labour Chris, just surprised at the way she states it as matter of fact as though getting all those things in place are like boiling an egg...

[spireitetoo]

 The Earl of Chesterfield, on 22 April 2024 - 05:46 PM, said:

So today's studio touring stooge was Andrew Mitchell, who repeatedly supported the Rwanda fiasco to the point of claiming that country is "arguably safer than London".

Which I'm sure will come as news to all the Rwandans to whom his own government give asylum every year.

But hold on a minute - isn't that the very same Andrew Mitchell who only two years ago dubbed the scheme "immoral, impracticle, ineffective and expensive"?

https://conservative...-and-expensive/

https://www.huffingt...4b0723f8017ba80

Never mind though as he's merely some junior minister, and it's not as if, say, the Home Secretary would be so critical, is it.

Errr... https://www.theguard...y-batshit-video

Blimey, good job ol' 'wishy-washy' Rishi is talking tough to back up his long term support for the policy, then.

Oh, wait... https://www.bbc.com/...litics-67905741

But of course they'll conveniently forget these blatant hypocrisies to blame Labour for preventing 'Cruella' Braverman's "dream" of seeing vulnarable people - including Afghans who helped our forces - getting a one way ticket to Africa in a House of Lords where...they have no majority to do so...

Will labour overturn the decision if/when elected, and if they do what do they propose to do to try and stem the flow of small boat crossings instead?

[isleaiw1]

spireitetoo, on 23 April 2024 - 12:30 PM, said:

Will labour overturn the decision if/when elected, and if they do what do they propose to do to try and stem the flow of small boat crossings instead?

see above, Yvette cooper makes it sound so easy... which immediately worries me!

[fishini]

 isleaiw1, on 23 April 2024 - 06:09 PM, said:

see above, Yvette cooper makes it sound so easy... which immediately worries me!

Of course she does. She's labour so it was expected from you.

[isleaiw1]

fishini, on 23 April 2024 - 06:41 PM, said:

Of course she does. She's labour so it was expected from you.

No, anyone who suggests its a simple problem is either kidding themselves or the electorate. If it was simple, given it was one of the Tories 5 pillars, they'd have cracked it and took the glory. So is she lying to herself or to the electorate and which is worse...?

But of course as its Labour those who usually question and poke fun at everything will kneel at the alter of Labour propaganda.


Whereas I think they all talk sh*t and dont believe any unless its verifiable. A healthy cynicism towards, you just see more of one side of it as no one else on here seems to be prepared to challenge the words of the almighty Labour these days...

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 23 April 2024 - 07:19 PM

[Misnomer]

 isleaiw1, on 23 April 2024 - 07:18 PM, said:

No, anyone who suggests its a simple problem is either kidding themselves or the electorate. If it was simple, given it was one of the Tories 5 pillars, they'd have cracked it and took the glory. So is she lying to herself or to the electorate and which is worse...?

But of course as its Labour those who usually question and poke fun at everything will kneel at the alter of Labour propaganda.


Whereas I think they all talk sh*t and dont believe any unless its verifiable. A healthy cynicism towards, you just see more of one side of it as no one else on here seems to be prepared to challenge the words of the almighty Labour these days...

Not often I'll agree with you but, you are absolutely on the money here, Ian. 100%

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

As always, the devil's in the details...

https://www.theguard...-pretend-policy

And these tens of thousands of unspecified civil servants being axed to fund extra defence spending - will that include those tasked with implementing burgeoning Brexit bureaucracy? Pursuing all the supposed social security scroungers? Or maybe processing the countless asylum claims I thought the government are so desperate to clear...

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: Yesterday, 05:52 PM

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 24 April 2024 - 05:36 PM, said:

As always, the devil's in the details...

https://www.theguard...-pretend-policy

And these tens of thousands of unspecified civil servants being axed to fund extra defence spending - will that include those tasked with implementing burgeoning Brexit bureaucracy? Pursuing all the supposed social security scroungers? Or maybe processing the countless asylum claims I thought the government are so desperate to clear...

I mean even the former head of the civil servant reckons they need their pensions cutting back!