At least the Tories aimed for higher backhanders than a pair of specs and some new strides.

denso13 said:
This suggests,

That of the 10.7 million due to lose WFA, more than 8 million are below the poverty line. You know that isn't true.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is claiming that.

The fact (according to the sources) is 4/5 or 80% of the poorest pensioners are going to lose the payment.
 
would you be happier if they'd said.

"Four out of five pensioners who are on or below the poverty line, are expected to lose out on the winter fuel payment."
 
I wonder what these diversions have to do with gifts to politicians, such as gold wallpaper and luxury holidays.

Could it be that the actual topic of the thread would be deeply embarrassing to Tory supporters?

Yes it could.

Could it be that certain contributors make a hobby of trying to divert threads from their topic with irrelevant and off-topic interjections?

Yes it could.

Could it be that motorbiking leads the field with his diversion attempts?

It could and it is.
 
motorbiking said:
would you be happier if they'd said.

"Four out of five pensioners who are on or below the poverty line, are expected to lose out on the winter fuel payment."
Click to expand...
"They" did. "Four in every five pensioners living below or just above the poverty line are set to lose the winter fuel payment, including 1.1 million disabled people, according to new analysis by a leading charity."

www.independent.co.uk

Four in five pensioners struggling with finances will see winter fuel payment cut

Hundreds of thousands of vulnerable pensioners aged 80 or over will miss out on fuel help this year, Age UK estimates
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk

It was obvious what you said was not correct but you decided to run with it.
 
take it up with GMB. For me, I read it as 80% of the poorest pensioners would be losing out.

This on top of a benefit that is now complex to means test and according to Martin Lewis will result in increased benefits paid, means the whole stupid idea was a massive backfire. Goal saving money by cutting benefits to pensioners. result spend more money.

sometimes its better to keep the benefit universal to avoid making it cost a fortune to test and risk leaving those who need it without it.

You could see it Nandy's eyes - she just wanted to burry her head in her hands.
 
JohnD said:
I wonder what these diversions have to do with gifts to politicians, such as gold wallpaper and luxury holidays.

Could it be that the actual topic of the thread would be deeply embarrassing to Tory supporters?

Yes it could.

Could it be that certain contributors make a hobby of trying to divert threads from their topic with irrelevant and off-topic interjections?

Yes it could.

Could it be that motorbiking leads the field with his diversion attempts?

It could and it is.
Click to expand...
could it be you are upset again, with having your hatred of people who follow the Old Testament called out again.

boo hoo.
 
motorbiking said:
Except I'm not and have stated, I am keen for people with low skills that attract low wages to be helped to develop skills which attract higher wages.

The alternative is inflation and job losses.
Click to expand...
Factually wrong and incorrect, look at history
 
motorbiking said:
history wont help you compete in a global dynamic economy
Click to expand...
Ok you expand in Europe. When will you expand elsewhere? Can we all provide some sort of legal service to each other or live by selling each other hamburgers?
 
ajohn said:
I think the bill that really worries you gets an airing tomorrow. Soon anyway.

Did you know that low wages discourage growth in productivity?
Click to expand...
Yes it's going to cost jobs in the UK.

I suspect it's more the other way around. Low productivity encourages low wages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Boris Johnson agreed with some Tory MPs who thought Covid was "nature's way of dealing with old people"
12 13 14
Replies
196
Views
12K
JohnD
JohnD
Back
Top