[fishini]

isleaiw1, on 18 April 2024 - 05:48 PM, said:

Yep, all as bad as each other. One uses party funds, one uses tax payer funds (if that is either is found guilty of wrong doing). One has had the whip removed, one hasnt....

On the Rayner front I am losing track of what she has done, it could be electoral register issues, or capital gains tax issues, or maybe council tax issues.... or all three.

I think the whip removal is a little lame seeing as sunak knew about it in January and only acted when the papers got hold of it.

[isleaiw1]

fishini, on 18 April 2024 - 05:52 PM, said:

I think the whip removal is a little lame seeing as sunak knew about it in January and only acted when the papers got hold of it.

which tells you who really make the decisions in the country, the B****Y press!

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Another example of 'wishy-washy' Rishi Sunak's ever loosening grip of his party is Braverman's appearance at a right wing rally even Boris the Liar reprimanded tory MP's for attending: https://www.theguard...on-viktor-orban

Yup, only weeks after the increasingly tinfoil hatted Liz 'The Lettuce' Truss joined a stage with the shameless racist Steve Bannon - to the point of nodding along with him describing Tommy Robinson a "hero" - we have a former UK Home Secretary rubbing shoulders with unrepentant Islamophobes, homophobes and a bloke who thinks there were "legitimate concerns" behind the Christchurch mosque slaughter of twenty nineteen.

Not to mention Nigel Farage.

Yet the response from a prime minister who promised "integrity, professionalism and accountability" upon taking office?

The same as the number of Mail-esque media front pages condemning her behaviour...

[Holmesc1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 18 April 2024 - 07:06 PM, said:

Another example of 'wishy-washy' Rishi Sunak's ever loosening grip of his party is Braverman's appearance at a right wing rally even Boris the Liar reprimanded tory MP's for attending: https://www.theguard...on-viktor-orban

Yup, only weeks after the increasingly tinfoil hatted Liz 'The Lettuce' Truss joined a stage with the shameless racist Steve Bannon - to the point of nodding along with him describing Tommy Robinson a "hero" - we have a former UK Home Secretary rubbing shoulders with unrepentant Islamophobes, homophobes and a bloke who thinks there were "legitimate concerns" behind the Christchurch mosque slaughter of twenty nineteen.

Not to mention Nigel Farage.

Yet the response from a prime minister who promised "integrity, professionalism and accountability" upon taking office?

The same as the number of Mail-esque media front pages condemning her behaviour...

Ha ha whishy washy, a bit rich from a sir kier fan

[fishini]

Holmesc1, on 18 April 2024 - 07:16 PM, said:

Ha ha whishy washy, a bit rich from a sir kier fan

You are so dumb I find it impossible to underestimate you.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

Damn these incessant witch hunts!

https://news.sky.com...tchdog-13118478

Or could it be he's an arrogantly entitled narcissist who still thinks the rules don't apply to him...

[s42blue]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 19 April 2024 - 01:14 PM, said:

Damn these incessant witch hunts!

https://news.sky.com...tchdog-13118478

Or could it be he's an arrogantly entitled narcissist who still thinks the rules don't apply to him...

I’m erring towards the latter….

His level of arrogance, lack of self awareness and self entitlement probably can only be “learned” at the likes of Eton. Disgusting.

[The Earl of Chesterfield]

They targeted migrants.

Didn't work.

They targeted LGBTQ people.

Didn't work.

They targeted peace protestors.

Didn't work.

They targeted Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor and Dianne Abbott.

Didn't work.

So in one last, sneeringly sewer dredging attempt to create an enemy - spending the entire election campaign insisting Labour are the 'friend of the scroungers', no doubt - they're now targeting the sick: https://www.mirror.c...ssault-32624332

That's right, a billionaire who'll never, ever have to worry about paying any kind of bill scorns folk through no fault of their own left with nowt. Worse still, after fourteen years of his party decimating public services to create waiting lists measured in years, he somehow blames those on those lists for being there.

And exactly who's better qualified to decide if someone's too ill to work - their doctor, or some government stooge incentivised to be a modern day Colonel Nicholson*?

With, of course, the strong suspicion they'll all be employees of a company contracted to deliver this extra tier of red tape thanks to healthy political donations.

Ah well, at least it'll distract from the latest example of tory party sleaze for a day or two...



*The pompous officer who emptied the camp hospital to get workers in 'Bridge Over the River Kwai'.

This post has been edited by The Earl of Chesterfield: 19 April 2024 - 01:48 PM

[isleaiw1]

The Earl of Chesterfield, on 19 April 2024 - 01:41 PM, said:

They targeted migrants.

Didn't work.

They targeted LGBTQ people.

Didn't work.

They targeted peace protestors.

Didn't work.

They targeted Kier Starmer and Angela Raynor and Dianne Abbott.

Didn't work.

So in one last, sneeringly sewer dredging attempt to create an enemy - spending the entire election campaign insisting Labour are the 'friend of the scroungers', no doubt - they're now targeting the sick: https://www.mirror.c...ssault-32624332

That's right, a billionaire who'll never, ever have to worry about paying any kind of bill scorns folk through no fault of their own left with nowt. Worse still, after fourteen years of his party decimating public services to create waiting lists measured in years, he somehow blames those on those lists for being there.

And exactly who's better qualified to decide if someone's too ill to work - their doctor, or some government stooge incentivised to be a modern day Colonel Nicholson*?

With, of course, the strong suspicion they'll all be employees of a company contracted to deliver this extra tier of red tape thanks to healthy political donations.

Ah well, at least it'll distract from the latest example of tory party sleaze for a day or two...



*The pompous officer who emptied the camp hospital to get workers in 'Bridge Over the River Kwai'.

In late 2018, there were apparently less than 2m people who were economically inactive as they were long term sick. In 1993 it was 1.8m. Now its over 2.8m.

So a question for you Chris, do you think all 2.8m of those are actually too sick to work, and if so what do we need to do to stop the increase and get it back to where it was?

That's 1m more people who arent contributing to the system and are a drain on it. Meaning 1m less paying for 1m more. That no doubt accounts for why tax take is at an all time high...

More in education.

More in retirement living longer and rightly being paid the state pension for longer.

Which bit do you want to change as the reality is there are fewer paying for more people for longer and that isnt sustainable as it stands. If we are happy to accept that then we have to change what is paid for... to get a bit closer to balancing the books...

Over to you, what would you do...

[fishini]

isleaiw1, on 19 April 2024 - 02:18 PM, said:

In late 2018, there were apparently less than 2m people who were economically inactive as they were long term sick. In 1993 it was 1.8m. Now its over 2.8m.

So a question for you Chris, do you think all 2.8m of those are actually too sick to work, and if so what do we need to do to stop the increase and get it back to where it was?

That's 1m more people who arent contributing to the system and are a drain on it. Meaning 1m less paying for 1m more. That no doubt accounts for why tax take is at an all time high...

More in education.

More in retirement living longer and rightly being paid the state pension for longer.

Which bit do you want to change as the reality is there are fewer paying for more people for longer and that isnt sustainable as it stands. If we are happy to accept that then we have to change what is paid for... to get a bit closer to balancing the books...

Over to you, what would you do...

Reduce the hospital waiting lists would be a start

[isleaiw1]

fishini, on 19 April 2024 - 02:50 PM, said:

Reduce the hospital waiting lists would be a start

But if you are off work with a problem you are economically active but off sick. If you are economically inactive you are not off work, you dont have a job and you arent looking for one. I'd guess that a small portion fall into the need a hospital to fix them but waiting bucket - unless we are talking mental health referrals where the long waits might account for a bigger portion...

[Search & Destroy]

isleaiw1, on 19 April 2024 - 02:18 PM, said:

In late 2018, there were apparently less than 2m people who were economically inactive as they were long term sick. In 1993 it was 1.8m. Now its over 2.8m.

So a question for you Chris, do you think all 2.8m of those are actually too sick to work, and if so what do we need to do to stop the increase and get it back to where it was?

That's 1m more people who arent contributing to the system and are a drain on it. Meaning 1m less paying for 1m more. That no doubt accounts for why tax take is at an all time high...

More in education.

More in retirement living longer and rightly being paid the state pension for longer.

Which bit do you want to change as the reality is there are fewer paying for more people for longer and that isnt sustainable as it stands. If we are happy to accept that then we have to change what is paid for... to get a bit closer to balancing the books...

Over to you, what would you do...

Hilarious, when I posted similar you were straight on your high horse

One could possibly construe your posts as trolling?

[isleaiw1]

Search & Destroy, on 19 April 2024 - 05:51 PM, said:

Hilarious, when I posted similar you were straight on your high horse

One could possibly construe your posts as trolling?

Maybe because you referred to them as scrounging lazy so and so.

Whereas my concern is we are developing a culture where they think they are too ill to work... but the reality is going to work, mixing, achieving something etc, would help them....

I am no doctor but having lived with someone who suffered from depression I am pretty sure sitting at home all day is the easier option but not the better one.

So no trolling and nothing like your opinion, thankfully.

[Misnomer]

I don't want to do an 'Ian' special here but....my mate 😂 who works for the Home Office (true story), told me, the huge rise in claimants, are mainly from the LGBTQ community (mental health issues) and those recently awarded asylum status. Additionally, duplicate applications from immigrants who are working and also claiming benefits, but using different identities.

[dart in the crossbar]

 Misnomer, on 19 April 2024 - 09:11 PM, said:

I don't want to do an 'Ian' special here but....my mate 😂 who works for the Home Office (true story), told me, the huge rise in claimants, are mainly from the LGBTQ community (mental health issues) and those recently awarded asylum status. Additionally, duplicate applications from immigrants who are working and also claiming benefits, but using different identities.

Your mate? You don't say.

Anyway, your presence is required on the 'Artificial weather' thread on here. It's lacking your take on the ills of the world. Why not bring your mate for some additional insight whilst you're at it.

[dart in the crossbar]

 isleaiw1, on 19 April 2024 - 02:18 PM, said:

In late 2018, there were apparently less than 2m people who were economically inactive as they were long term sick. In 1993 it was 1.8m. Now its over 2.8m.

So a question for you Chris, do you think all 2.8m of those are actually too sick to work, and if so what do we need to do to stop the increase and get it back to where it was?

That's 1m more people who arent contributing to the system and are a drain on it. Meaning 1m less paying for 1m more. That no doubt accounts for why tax take is at an all time high...

More in education.

More in retirement living longer and rightly being paid the state pension for longer.

Which bit do you want to change as the reality is there are fewer paying for more people for longer and that isnt sustainable as it stands. If we are happy to accept that then we have to change what is paid for... to get a bit closer to balancing the books...

Over to you, what would you do...

It's based on the state pension age.

As an example, from 6 April 2010 to November 2018, the State Pension age for women gradually increased from 60 to 65. It is now close to 67 and heading towards 68 and potentially higher. Similar rise for men albeit from a higher initial retirement age.

Whereas in 2010 a 60 year old woman would be 'a pensioner', in 2024 she would now be described as 'economically inactive' for 7 extra years until she was 67 or thereabouts.

It seems fairly unremarkable that there's a collelation between the delay in the state pension age and the increase of people who are 'economically inactive'.

Reasons for 'economic inactivity' likely to include health issues, redundancy/unemployment, caring responsibilities and (hate to say it) people in receipt of work pensions below state pension age.

[isleaiw1]

 dart in the crossbar, on 20 April 2024 - 06:47 AM, said:

It's based on the state pension age.

As an example, from 6 April 2010 to November 2018, the State Pension age for women gradually increased from 60 to 65. It is now close to 67 and heading towards 68 and potentially higher. Similar rise for men albeit from a higher initial retirement age.

Whereas in 2010 a 60 year old woman would be 'a pensioner', in 2024 she would now be described as 'economically inactive' for 7 extra years until she was 67 or thereabouts.

It seems fairly unremarkable that there's a collelation between the delay in the state pension age and the increase of people who are 'economically inactive'.

Reasons for 'economic inactivity' likely to include health issues, redundancy/unemployment, caring responsibilities and (hate to say it) people in receipt of work pensions below state pension age.

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

[Misnomer]

 dart in the crossbar, on 20 April 2024 - 06:36 AM, said:

Your mate? You don't say.

Anyway, your presence is required on the 'Artificial weather' thread on here. It's lacking your take on the ills of the world. Why not bring your mate for some additional insight whilst you're at it.

Well, if it's good enough for Ian, it must be good enough for everyone else, right? Can't beat anecdotal evidence to support an argument.

[Misnomer]

 dart in the crossbar, on 20 April 2024 - 06:47 AM, said:

It's based on the state pension age.

As an example, from 6 April 2010 to November 2018, the State Pension age for women gradually increased from 60 to 65. It is now close to 67 and heading towards 68 and potentially higher. Similar rise for men albeit from a higher initial retirement age.

Whereas in 2010 a 60 year old woman would be 'a pensioner', in 2024 she would now be described as 'economically inactive' for 7 extra years until she was 67 or thereabouts.

It seems fairly unremarkable that there's a collelation between the delay in the state pension age and the increase of people who are 'economically inactive'.

Reasons for 'economic inactivity' likely to include health issues, redundancy/unemployment, caring responsibilities and (hate to say it) people in receipt of work pensions below state pension age.

A correlation? In other words, just your theory.

There's also a correlation with what my mate at the Home Office said. We can correlate anything with anything.

[isleaiw1]

 Misnomer, on 20 April 2024 - 09:44 AM, said:

Well, if it's good enough for Ian, it must be good enough for everyone else, right? Can't beat anecdotal evidence to support an argument.

It certainly beats no evidence