Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I would not have described it thus.

I think all the politicians performed extremely well, although I warmed only to one of them. However, the audience gave Corbyn and Swinson a particulary hard time. Sturgeon had an easier ride. Johnson kind of won the audience over a bit and lightened up the proceedings. The audience ultimately warmed to him and hostilities were mitigated.

One thing that was clear was that the audience considered Corbyn a clear and present danger in terms of our well being, and that reassures me that Boris is likely to romp home.

Corbyn's sinister invitation to step outside for a conversation to a member of the audience on his serious concerns about a Corbyn government told me all I needed to know!

I think it is pretty clear that whatever political view anyone has on these forums, Marxist Communism does not really tick any boxes.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

What amazes me is that there are not more posts on how the leaders performed in the Question Time Leaders’ debates. Is this because our left wing friends are embarrassed about what Corbyn has exposed to the world?

No wonder they are trying so hard to discredit Boris! He’s the only one who spoke any sense!

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Just when you thought Labour are getting free and easy with other people's money. They were just getting warmed up.

Link

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Maybe its because you're living in a bubble old chap? There aren't more posts because Boris didn't do very well. No wonder he's refused to do the C4 one, the less is is exposed for his lies the better it seems.

---------- Post added at 07:51 ---------- Previous post was at 07:49 ----------

If only women didn't have a vote ;)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

If only there was equality and men would be compensated for having to have worked for an extra 5 years, or simply for the extra 1 or 2 years.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509

(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)

Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------

If only women didn’t have to take time off work to continue the human race...

(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Yes equality all round is a good thing. Equal opportunities for rich/poor, closing of the North/South and young/old divides, Glad you're coming on board; always had you down as a closet socialist, you don't fool me ;)

---------- Post added at 09:31 ---------- Previous post was at 09:29 ----------

Pot holes, a key Tory priority ! There were less pot holes under Labour....

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I don't think anyone really agrees (Old Boy will no doubt surprise us here) with how the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition changed the rules in 2011 giving just three years notice to some of those affected.

Considering the original increase had a fifteen year lead-in period it isn't really adequate time for some of those preparing. That said, it isn't just women who are affected here men who prepared to retire at 65 in this decade found the increase from 65 to 66. While not being hit the same way as women these short notice changes are costing men thousands.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Its that convenient magic money tree making a guest reappearance again...

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Looks very much like it unless you've got a long term non terminal illness that requires frequent hospital visits - then you're fair game to be squeezed for every penny they can get out of you. I reckon this 'oversight' could be Borris' dementia tax moment.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

What has women having babies got to do with it? If anything as I understand it, they now have (1 or 2) extra years to fill in any gaps.


You either equalize them or you don't. You can't exactly say you're going to equalize them in 50 years time. They would still complain they didn't have enough notice.

---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------

Men got exactly the same notice of the extra changes as women did.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I said some men are affected, but the leap isn’t the same or compounding the original state pension age increases announced in 1995.

I don’t think any reasonable person would accept your notion “you either equalise them or you don’t” without any lead in period. We ask people to make responsible financial plans for their retirement - the Government shouldn’t pull the rug from under these to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds at two or three years notice given a 40 odd year working career.

It also creates an anomaly where those who are responsible and retire early get penalised for the period and those on benefits continue to trouser taxpayers money in the interim with minimal effect.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

They've had over 20 years notice of the equalization. How much more of a lead in period do they want? With the scrapping of retirement at 60/65, they have extra years to earn money for whatever they class as "responsible financial plans".