|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 21, 2024 13:21:32 GMT
Don't know who you are asking your first questions of because they have little or nothing to do with any claims I have made. I only refer to New Labour as such because that is a commonly used term. It is a completely irrelevant issue anyway. The first time I heard anything about stopping the WFA was a comment by Theresa May in the run up to the 2019 election. Old Labour wore its heart on its sleeve it would have never stopped the WFA in the way Starmer's government has. Your opinion on it is your pure anti-Labour imagination at work. The rest of your post is just claptrap. You constantly make claims about ''New Labour'' being separate and a new concept (you've even done so here in your standard failed bluster and MO at projection when caught out- if it's ''irrelevant'' why keep mentioning the term )- but as expected (and par for the course with you) cannot evidence your claims as they are pure BS. Did Theresa May cancel 11m pensions from receiving WFA? Did Boris? Did Liz Truss? Did Sunak? No? Well why are you even trying to insinuate that she did so when your heroes first action (after cancelling Rwanda) was to cancel WFA for 11m OAPs in the full knowledge that more than 4000 OAPs will die every year due to this single action ? Why do you post such easily disproved crap ? You must just be a troll or an internet bot. No-one with any working brain cells would put themselves up as an Aunt Sally to be as easily knocked down as you do - day after day' Your ridiculously shallow thinking level makes an idiot out of you once again. I have previously and still do refer to New Labour as New Labour, it is my choice (nothing to do with Rightist controlling whinging) and even idiots like yourself know exactly who and what I am referring to. "The term New Labour was coined by Blair in his October 1994 Labour Party Conference speech as part of the slogan "new Labour, new Britain". The term was picked up by parts of the Media and gradually became the normal way to refer to the Blair led Labour party. New Labour were very different to old labour. The dropping of Clause 4 is a prime example. Theresa May let it be known, you can check it out for yourself, that she was in favour of cutting the WFA, she was only in office for three years, so we don't know what she would have done if she had done the full five years. I am not responsible for what she said, but you are responsible for attempting to deny the reality so that you can fit it into your nutty Rightist world. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propaganda, apart from anything else (lets see the budget) it ignores this government's actions to increase pensioners entitled to Pension Credits to claim them. Which they claim has had good results so far. Why do you set out to prove your shallow totally biased thinking with comments that are so easily rebutted? I take it, it is because you know no better. You are more of an "Aunt Sally" and far more deluded than I could ever be. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 21, 2024 13:29:22 GMT
As tax-raid Budget looms... poll reveals the Conservatives are ahead on family finances for the first time since Boris was in No10..... Comments from a discussion on Euro-News: About avoiding a possible recession. 1. In terms of growth .. "the world out there (outside of Europe) is cold". 2. "Greater investment is needed". }Starmer is looking to encourage further investment by seeking side by side investment, Private investment alongside of Government investment.{3. "Growth in Small enterprises is needed". }Starmer has said he intends to encourage small enterprises, thus increasing better employment opportunities.{ The government needs money to invest in the country's future which is why he is aiming to put the country on a better financial footing. We will all have to pay our share. It will make a change from just focusing on making the rich richer in the hope that they will invest more, which they seldom respond to. I suspect most thinking people know the UK has been existing in a financial money pit. Everyone will be called upon to share the burden. Productive lives are more likely to be happy lives, so lets see what this government can do about it. Given Starmer's revealed intentions it is the case that Starmer is ahead of the game. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 21, 2024 15:48:04 GMT
You constantly make claims about ''New Labour'' being separate and a new concept (you've even done so here in your standard failed bluster and MO at projection when caught out- if it's ''irrelevant'' why keep mentioning the term )- but as expected (and par for the course with you) cannot evidence your claims as they are pure BS. Did Theresa May cancel 11m pensions from receiving WFA? Did Boris? Did Liz Truss? Did Sunak? No? Well why are you even trying to insinuate that she did so when your heroes first action (after cancelling Rwanda) was to cancel WFA for 11m OAPs in the full knowledge that more than 4000 OAPs will die every year due to this single action ? Why do you post such easily disproved crap ? You must just be a troll or an internet bot. No-one with any working brain cells would put themselves up as an Aunt Sally to be as easily knocked down as you do - day after day' Your ridiculously shallow thinking level makes an idiot out of you once again. I have previously and still do refer to New Labour as New Labour, it is my choice (nothing to do with Rightist controlling whinging) and even idiots like yourself know exactly who and what I am referring to. "The term New Labour was coined by Blair in his October 1994 Labour Party Conference speech as part of the slogan "new Labour, new Britain". The term was picked up by parts of the Media and gradually became the normal way to refer to the Blair led Labour party. New Labour were very different to old labour. The dropping of Clause 4 is a prime example. Theresa May let it be known, you can check it out for yourself, that she was in favour of cutting the WFA, she was only in office for three years, so we don't what she would have done if she had done the full five years. I am not responsible for what she said, but you are responsible for attempting to deny the reality so that you can fit it into your nutty Rightist world. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propaganda, apart from anything else (lets see the budget) it ignores this government's actions to increase pensioners entitled to Pension Credits to claim them. Which they claim has had good results so far. Why do you set out to prove your shallow totally biased thinking with comments that are so easily rebutted? I take it, it is because you know no better. You are more of an "Aunt Sally" and far more deluded than I could ever be.
Fully referenced link to your claim that Mrs May herself stated during the 2019 GE campaign that she had intended cancelling the WFA please I can find no such reference whatsoever to such a claim made by her - not even on one of your unreferenced essay mill site you usually c&p from. Therefore I am fully confident in stating as fact that your unreferenced claim is yet another piece of made up BS as per your standard MO. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propagandaIt's a Labour produced figure - are you now disagreeing with your idols? |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 21, 2024 15:50:23 GMT
Comments from a discussion on Euro-News: About avoiding a possible recession. 1. In terms of growth .. "the world out there (outside of Europe) is cold". 2. "Greater investment is needed". }Starmer is looking to encourage further investment by seeking side by side investment, Private investment alongside of Government investment.{3. "Growth in Small enterprises is needed". }Starmer has said he intends to encourage small enterprises, thus increasing better employment opportunities.{ The government needs money to invest in the country's future which is why he is aiming to put the country on a better financial footing. We will all have to pay our share. It will make a change from just focusing on making the rich richer in the hope that they will invest more, which they seldom respond to. I suspect most thinking people know the UK has been existing in a financial money pit. Everyone will be called upon to share the burden. Productive lives are more likely to be happy lives, so lets see what this government can do about it. Given Starmer's revealed intentions it is the case that Starmer is ahead of the game. Why are you commenting on your own post and you still haven't answered who is ''all/everyone'' when nothing could be further from the truth |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 21, 2024 21:48:10 GMT
Your ridiculously shallow thinking level makes an idiot out of you once again. I have previously and still do refer to New Labour as New Labour, it is my choice (nothing to do with Rightist controlling whinging) and even idiots like yourself know exactly who and what I am referring to. "The term New Labour was coined by Blair in his October 1994 Labour Party Conference speech as part of the slogan "new Labour, new Britain". The term was picked up by parts of the Media and gradually became the normal way to refer to the Blair led Labour party. New Labour were very different to old labour. The dropping of Clause 4 is a prime example. Theresa May let it be known, you can check it out for yourself, that she was in favour of cutting the WFA, she was only in office for three years, so we don't what she would have done if she had done the full five years. I am not responsible for what she said, but you are responsible for attempting to deny the reality so that you can fit it into your nutty Rightist world. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propaganda, apart from anything else (lets see the budget) it ignores this government's actions to increase pensioners entitled to Pension Credits to claim them. Which they claim has had good results so far. Why do you set out to prove your shallow totally biased thinking with comments that are so easily rebutted? I take it, it is because you know no better. You are more of an "Aunt Sally" and far more deluded than I could ever be.
Fully referenced link to your claim that Mrs May herself stated during the 2019 GE campaign that she had intended cancelling the WFA please I can find no such reference whatsoever to such a claim made by her - not even on one of your unreferenced essay mill site you usually c&p from. Therefore I am fully confident in stating as fact that your unreferenced claim is yet another piece of made up BS as per your standard MO. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propagandaIt's a Labour produced figure - are you now disagreeing with your idols? "Thousands of pensioners could die if the government proceeds with its plan to cut winter fuel payments for those not on benefits, Labour’s own research suggested. Analysis published in 2017, when Sir Keir Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet , warned that Conservative plans to cut the fuel allowance for ten million pensioners would increase excess deaths by 3,850 that winter. (the 0riginal comment that you posted was, Could not Will). The proposal, put forward by Theresa May’s government, was dubbed the “single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation in our country”.www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/winter-fuel-payment-cut-labour-deaths-b2609340.html |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 21, 2024 22:00:07 GMT
Given Starmer's revealed intentions it is the case that Starmer is ahead of the game. Why are you commenting on your own post and you still haven't answered who is ''all/everyone'' when nothing could be further from the truth I was making a point that I missed on the original post, a comment that would almost certainly be missed by the posters I most wanted to see it, if I had just added it to my original post. Why are you asking? You are splitting hairs instead of using your nous on your "everyone" comment. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Oct 22, 2024 9:33:19 GMT
Theresa May let it be known, you can check it out for yourself, that she was in favour of cutting the WFA, she was only in office for three years, so we don't what she would have done if she had done the full five years. I am not responsible for what she said, but you are responsible for attempting to deny the reality so that you can fit it into your nutty Rightist world.
Fully referenced link to your claim that Mrs May herself stated during the 2019 GE campaign that she had intended cancelling the WFA please I can find no such reference whatsoever to such a claim made by her - not even on one of your unreferenced essay mill site you usually c&p from. Therefore I am fully confident in stating as fact that your unreferenced claim is yet another piece of made up BS as per your standard MO. 4,000 OAPs will die, is a twisted distortion of what can only be a possible estimate of the number that might die, used for political propagandaIt's a Labour produced figure - are you now disagreeing with your idols? "Thousands of pensioners could die if the government proceeds with its plan to cut winter fuel payments for those not on benefits, Labour’s own research suggested. Analysis published in 2017, when Sir Keir Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet , warned that Conservative plans to cut the fuel allowance for ten million pensioners would increase excess deaths by 3,850 that winter. (the 0riginal comment that you posted was, Could not Will). The proposal, put forward by Theresa May’s government, was dubbed the “single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation in our country”.www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/winter-fuel-payment-cut-labour-deaths-b2609340.htmlThis is an article in the left wing Independent, does not evidence your claim and carefully uses the conditional ''IF' - where is the independent evidence to support your claim that Theresa May personally proposed this in the 2019 GE campaign or that it was a TM government proposal at any time ? TM proposed what the lefty media unhelpfully labelled a ''dementia' tax , maybe your memory is suspect ? |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 22, 2024 17:01:44 GMT
It does not matter what Teresa May proposed - she did not implement anything. the Labour Party chose to implement this policy in the full knowledge that it would lead to the deaths of thousands.
they own it.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 22, 2024 17:40:14 GMT
"Thousands of pensioners could die if the government proceeds with its plan to cut winter fuel payments for those not on benefits, Labour’s own research suggested. Analysis published in 2017, when Sir Keir Starmer was in the Shadow Cabinet , warned that Conservative plans to cut the fuel allowance for ten million pensioners would increase excess deaths by 3,850 that winter. (the 0riginal comment that you posted was, Could not Will). The proposal, put forward by Theresa May’s government, was dubbed the “single biggest attack on pensioners in a generation in our country”.www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/winter-fuel-payment-cut-labour-deaths-b2609340.htmlThis is an article in the left wing Independent, does not evidence your claim and carefully uses the conditional ''IF' - where is the independent evidence to support your claim that Theresa May personally proposed this in the 2019 GE campaign or that it was a TM government proposal at any time ? TM proposed what the lefty media unhelpfully labelled a ''dementia' tax , maybe your memory is suspect ? "IF" is the only appropriate position to take in the circumstances. There is no suggestion that the Independent (a moderate newspaper) was lying, your insinuation is a reflection of your own tendency to lie. If you want greater evidence, it is out there you just need to try harder to find it. More likely its your shallow thinking that is suspect. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 22, 2024 17:48:59 GMT
It does not matter what Teresa May proposed - she did not implement anything. the Labour Party chose to implement this policy in the full knowledge that it would lead to the deaths of thousands. they own it. I know she didn't implement it, but the fact that she was contemplating it, is my point. The assumptions made in 2017/19 did not include the effort by the then Government or would be government to make an effort to see that those who were entitled to Pension Credits received pension credits. Nor did they include the increases in state pensions down to the 'double lock' which has made pensioners better off today than in 2018. "Poverty rates The relative poverty rate for pensioners fell from 18% in 2019 to 16% in 2022. Disposable incomes Pensioners today have disposable incomes that are similar to those below pension age. |
|
|
|
Post by om15 on Oct 22, 2024 17:49:28 GMT
I really can't believe that you said that.
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Oct 22, 2024 17:55:44 GMT
I really can't believe that you said that. Righties do in general have a very shallow thinking level, one that is mostly based upon dishonest Rightist propaganda. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Oct 22, 2024 21:28:49 GMT
It does not matter what Teresa May proposed - she did not implement anything. the Labour Party chose to implement this policy in the full knowledge that it would lead to the deaths of thousands. they own it. I know she didn't implement it, but the fact that she was contemplating it, is my point. and your point is nonsense - I could contemplate dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, but that would not alter the fact that the only people who did actually drop a bomb was the USA. The triple lock was in place in 2018 - it had been for the previous 8 years. Are you saying that Labour failed to take this into account?. And every government has made an effort to increase the take up of Pension Credits - including New Labour who were no more successful than any other government. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Oct 23, 2024 8:43:12 GMT
I really can't believe that you said that. Righties do in general have a very shallow thinking level, one that is mostly based upon dishonest Rightist propaganda. ... this ^^ coming from someone who said pensioners who lost their winter fuel payments will have a nice surprise if they apply for pension credit, they will get their £300 winter fuel allowance reinstated, that will be a 'nice Christmas present' for them .... FFS
Applying for pension credit is now taking 8 weeks and longer, by which time many will have already died of hypothermia. ....
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Oct 23, 2024 9:09:02 GMT
I attended a council meeting last night and it was said that some pensioners in our parish missed pension credits by a pound .
I’m sure they appreciate that silly old sod patronising them.
|
|
