General Election 2019

[Fatty eats roadkill]

There’s been some seriously heavy hallucigenics been taken by some posters on here.

The Tories have openly been saying all this for ages.

First thing they’ll do is remove the right to strike from people for the National good.

Page 48 of the manifesto then takes away your rights to challenge the Government in court.

Then you can do sweet fuck all about anything because you’ll lose everything you have.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

There’s been some seriously heavy hallucigenics been taken by some posters on here.

The Tories have openly been saying all this for ages.

First thing they’ll do is remove the right to strike from people for the National good.

Page 48 of the manifesto then takes away your rights to challenge the Government in court.

Then you can do sweet fuck all about anything because you’ll lose everything you have.

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Just to give you an idea of the problem Labour faced, my wife's cousin is married to the aunt of our local MP ( in West Yorkshire).
At a family party last week she was telling me that she and a few other family members were not going to vote for their relative because they couldn't look themselves in the mirror and know that they had played a part in supporting Jeremy Corbyn

[Spyman]

Just to give you an idea of the problem Labour faced, my wife's cousin is married to the aunt of our local MP ( in West Yorkshire).
At a family party last week she was telling me that she and a few other family members were not going to vote for their relative because they couldn't look themselves in the mirror and know that they had played a part in supporting Jeremy Corbyn

I understand not wanting to support Corbyn.

What I don't understand is choosing to support Johnson instead. I can't get my head around anyone who isn't upper-middle class having any sympathy with him.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[biccynana]

Agreed it is disappointing for Jenny but if you ignore the views of your electorate as she did over Brexit then they will punish you.

Or if you are Caroline Flint, do everything to represent the pro- Brexit views of your constituents and they'll punish you anyway. Funny game, politics.

[Darl-Zero]

Good riddance to Chapman, she was just so weak, she has paid the price for not respecting the Brexit vote of her constituents & sucking up to Corbyn

A little less gloating and a bit more humility might be a good idea Pete. Remember what goes around comes around. Ever wondered why so many people find you so irritating?

I’ll lend my vote to Darlo_Pete.
This result is a reaction to those politicians whose answer to brexit is to patronize then ignore leave voters. And I like Pete voted remain but respect democracy.

[Darlogramps]

Did you vote Conservative?

Then you voted for this, and I hope you are proud of yourselves.

Because you shouldn't be


https://mobile.twitter.com/EmergMedDr/s ... 7985378310

The problem for your requirements with that link is that it actually shows the problem of social media. 1 person puts up 1 small point which is then embellished over and over until it is a Mammoth.
I have paid in to the NHS for 50 years and until recently took little out, thus am entitled to what I do take out as per my contract.
People of a younger generation have not paid in in total and with the human race's life expectancy lengthening as it is, thus costing more expence, is it so wrong for the younger generation to be asked to take out further insurance to help pay bills if needed? Most of us took out multiple life insurance policies etc.

And yet it is older people who A) use the NHS more and B) are much better off financially than younger people. If anything, older people should be contributing more for that very reason.

Good luck selling the idea of getting financially squeezed younger people to subsidise older people’s healthcare. Will go down a treat I’m sure.

The problem with the NHS is structural. The same system set up in the 1940s is still being used. It can’t cope with an ever growing and ever ageing population. Yet whenever you suggest reforming the NHS, the lefties squeal about privatisation and insurance, as if the only alternative is the American system. It isn’t.

Look at some of European models, which is more what Damien Green is referring to in Grytters’ borderline deranged post. These systems work far more efficiently and provide much better care because they place patients first, rather than our bureaucratic and centralised system.

The principle of Free at the Point of Use should be protected, but let’s not pretend the NHS isn’t in need of radical reform.

Oh, and all A and E visits/doctors appointments should be subject to a deposit, which gets returned once you’ve finished using the service. The system remains free at the point of use as you leave without losing any money. But it would stop the timewasters who are misusing the services or booking appointments and not showing up.

[EDJOHNS]

Did you vote Conservative?

Then you voted for this, and I hope you are proud of yourselves.

Because you shouldn't be


https://mobile.twitter.com/EmergMedDr/s ... 7985378310

The problem for your requirements with that link is that it actually shows the problem of social media. 1 person puts up 1 small point which is then embellished over and over until it is a Mammoth.
I have paid in to the NHS for 50 years and until recently took little out, thus am entitled to what I do take out as per my contract.
People of a younger generation have not paid in in total and with the human race's life expectancy lengthening as it is, thus costing more expence, is it so wrong for the younger generation to be asked to take out further insurance to help pay bills if needed? Most of us took out multiple life insurance policies etc.

And yet it is older people who A) use the NHS more and B) are much better off financially than younger people. If anything, older people should be contributing more for that very reason.

Good luck selling the idea of getting financially squeezed younger people to subsidise older people’s healthcare. Will go down a treat I’m sure.

The problem with the NHS is structural. The same system set up in the 1940s is still being used. It can’t cope with an ever growing and ever ageing population. Yet whenever you suggest reforming the NHS, the lefties squeal about privatisation and insurance, as if the only alternative is the American system. It isn’t.

Look at some of European models, which is more what Damien Green is referring to in Grytters’ borderline deranged post. These systems work far more efficiently and provide much better care because they place patients first, rather than our bureaucratic and centralised system.

The principle of Free at the Point of Use should be protected, but let’s not pretend the NHS isn’t in need of radical reform.

Oh, and all A and E visits/doctors appointments should be subject to a deposit, which gets returned once you’ve finished using the service. The system remains free at the point of use as you leave without losing any money. But it would stop the timewasters who are misusing the services or booking appointments and not showing up.

I do not say the NHS is not in need of reform. I have family working in the NHS and they tell some horrific stories. What I do say is that people my age made a contract with the government some time in the late 50's early 60's. To change that contract when we have kept our part of the bargain and paid in all our lives is morally wrong. To show how strongly I feel about this,even though separated I wanted to take the government to court when after I had paid in for her for 45 years and she had paid in for some 20 + years also she was suddenly told she had to work an extra 5 years. Sadly she refused to let me, so she struggles to work even though her health is not the best. Do you honestly tell me you think that is right?

I totally agree with you the system needs overhauling, and it should have been done years ago, but you change the contract with people recently signing up for it NOT those who have paid all their lives.
Seems like, not for the first time, we disagree.
When I was working for £3.10s a week and taking home £2.12s and 9d a week, could I really afford to pay so much in tax and insurance? I thought not, but I had no choice. I do not see today's youngsters should be any different. Further, once established in the workplace at say 25 years of age why would an increase proportionate to wage be wrong? Lets face it, throughout my working life at virtually every budget my tax liability has been increased. Are you saying we should stop doing that?
Last point, about 20-25 years after I started work people started talking about taking out some form of "insurance" to top up their income on retirement. Prior to that I do not ever remember it being spoken of and certainly it was not advertised that you should or even could take out any form of insurance. Those of us on a good income maybe invested in stock at some low level or those on a lesser wage, if at all, saved via the bank. Did such insurance policies actually exist in the 50's and 60's? Not to my knowledge either then or now.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Did you vote Conservative?

Then you voted for this, and I hope you are proud of yourselves.

Because you shouldn't be


https://mobile.twitter.com/EmergMedDr/s ... 7985378310

The problem for your requirements with that link is that it actually shows the problem of social media. 1 person puts up 1 small point which is then embellished over and over until it is a Mammoth.
I have paid in to the NHS for 50 years and until recently took little out, thus am entitled to what I do take out as per my contract.
People of a younger generation have not paid in in total and with the human race's life expectancy lengthening as it is, thus costing more expence, is it so wrong for the younger generation to be asked to take out further insurance to help pay bills if needed? Most of us took out multiple life insurance policies etc.

And yet it is older people who A) use the NHS more and B) are much better off financially than younger people. If anything, older people should be contributing more for that very reason.

Good luck selling the idea of getting financially squeezed younger people to subsidise older people’s healthcare. Will go down a treat I’m sure.

The problem with the NHS is structural. The same system set up in the 1940s is still being used. It can’t cope with an ever growing and ever ageing population. Yet whenever you suggest reforming the NHS, the lefties squeal about privatisation and insurance, as if the only alternative is the American system. It isn’t.

Look at some of European models, which is more what Damien Green is referring to in Grytters’ borderline deranged post. These systems work far more efficiently and provide much better care because they place patients first, rather than our bureaucratic and centralised system.

The principle of Free at the Point of Use should be protected, but let’s not pretend the NHS isn’t in need of radical reform.

Oh, and all A and E visits/doctors appointments should be subject to a deposit, which gets returned once you’ve finished using the service. The system remains free at the point of use as you leave without losing any money. But it would stop the timewasters who are misusing the services or booking appointments and not showing up.

I do not say the NHS is not in need of reform. I have family working in the NHS and they tell some horrific stories. What I do say is that people my age made a contract with the government some time in the late 50's early 60's. To change that contract when we have kept our part of the bargain and paid in all our lives is morally wrong. To show how strongly I feel about this,even though separated I wanted to take the government to court when after I had paid in for her for 45 years and she had paid in for some 20 + years also she was suddenly told she had to work an extra 5 years. Sadly she refused to let me, so she struggles to work even though her health is not the best. Do you honestly tell me you think that is right?

I totally agree with you the system needs overhauling, and it should have been done years ago, but you change the contract with people recently signing up for it NOT those who have paid all their lives.
Seems like, not for the first time, we disagree.
When I was working for £3.10s a week and taking home £2.12s and 9d a week, could I really afford to pay so much in tax and insurance? I thought not, but I had no choice. I do not see today's youngsters should be any different. Further, once established in the workplace at say 25 years of age why would an increase proportionate to wage be wrong? Lets face it, throughout my working life at virtually every budget my tax liability has been increased. Are you saying we should stop doing that?
Last point, about 20-25 years after I started work people started talking about taking out some form of "insurance" to top up their income on retirement. Prior to that I do not ever remember it being spoken of and certainly it was not advertised that you should or even could take out any form of insurance. Those of us on a good income maybe invested in stock at some low level or those on a lesser wage, if at all, saved via the bank. Did such insurance policies actually exist in the 50's and 60's? Not to my knowledge either then or now.

You really don’t understand how Government works do you?
They get a majority and then they can do whatever they want by changing the law to suit them.
We as a nation have just given them carte Blanche to do that because people thought Boris is funny and were sticking it to The Man. FFS, he IS The Man and he’s stated what he’s going to do, but all you heard was “Get Brexit Done!”
I can afford to survive a Tory Government but seeing as we now live in Tory constituencies, I couldn’t give a s*** if you can’t, cos that’s the Tory way! We voted for it, live it!

[theoriginalfatcat]

she struggles to work even though her health is not the best. Do you honestly tell me you think that is right?

No.

The way the WASPI women have been treated is scandalous. Many of them left school at 16 (I did too but I'm not a woman) and many of them were on lower pay because they were female. Also, as you state - private pensions and similar products were never even talked about in the 70's/80's - not for most people anyway.

My pension age has been put back too, only for a year, and with a lot more notice - however that wasn't the deal.

[lo36789]

What excess income do you think 20-25 year olds have got - there is a reason that the bank of mum and dad are the biggest mortgage lender for first time buyers in the UK.

Look I know the stats. I have seen them my entire job is trying to develop a way to help people manage their money better.

- 50% of the UK population spend what they bring in every single month
- 25% spend more than what they bring in
- 75% have less than £100 of savings if their boiler breaks or they suffer a financial shock they tumble into a debt spiral

The vast majority of those not in this position are over 30.

20-25 year old do not have the capacity to make extra contributions for the health service to support the elderly. The biggest net contributors to the NHS are EU migrants - they pay tax and barely use the service (now or in future).

There has been loads of research and prevention is basically better than cure. The health service needs a complete reform there have been some great studies, actually I am sure I read one about a trial done out of Liverpool which effectively illustrate a focus on diet, exercise and social interaction are the most cost effective ways to manage health.

If access to the above services were free or subsidised it would reduce the impact on the burden on the NHS.

[theoriginalfatcat]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

[EDJOHNS]

What excess income do you think 20-25 year olds have got - there is a reason that the bank of mum and dad are the biggest mortgage lender for first time buyers in the UK.

Look I know the stats. I have seen them my entire job is trying to develop a way to help people manage their money better.

- 50% of the UK population spend what they bring in every single month
- 25% spend more than what they bring in
- 75% have less than £100 of savings if their boiler breaks or they suffer a financial shock they tumble into a debt spiral

The vast majority of those not in this position are over 30.

20-25 year old do not have the capacity to make extra contributions for the health service to support the elderly. The biggest net contributors to the NHS are EU migrants - they pay tax and barely use the service (now or in future).

There has been loads of research and prevention is basically better than cure. The health service needs a complete reform there have been some great studies, actually I am sure I read one about a trial done out of Liverpool which effectively illustrate a focus on diet, exercise and social interaction are the most cost effective ways to manage health.

If access to the above services were free or subsidised it would reduce the impact on the burden on the NHS.

You misread the comment. I meant from say a starting age of 25, when most would have finished an apprenticeship or finished Uni etc. Up until that point they pay a lower rate, but once they reach that sort of age, instead of leaving it to chance if the do or don't take out an extra pension let the government make it mandatory to have some form of fall back pension scheme.

To say those using the service now are costing young people is a disgrace. I paid in for 50 years and until recently had only ever seen a doctor about 10 times, (and 1 broken collar bone sorted in hospital).
I am not going to list my health issues as it is quite long, but even so, when given new medication by my doctor I, if at all possible, find a herbal remedy which I discuss with my doctor and if she is ok with it I use them, and of course I pay for those and my prescriptions which should be free to me are not issued where possible.

Having posted my reply to your starter I read your % figures. Yet again, how times change. From age 5 when I started getting pocket money, (3d), I was made by my family to save 1d a week in the Yorkshire penny bank, and I actually took it with my mam every Saturday morning to the bank.
I did similar with all my kids and thankfully they have carried the practice on. Expenses 1/3rd.(I know that the possibility of that figure has changed for most people but was what I grew up with). of income, spend 1/3rd, and save 1/3rd
As to credit cards debt etc. I was set against them. Having grown up with yea old Dickens I hated the idea of debt.
In the late 80's I had 2 punctures to my car tyres in 1 night on the M5 which caused a problem as I only had cards that took cash from a machine. I spoke to my bank manager some days later and it cropped up. He told me to have a credit card and if I did not use it there would be no charge so I agreed.
He sent my wife £3,000 on a mastercard and £3,000 on a credit card. I was sent 2 cards with the same limits, in the next 3 weeks totally unbidden I had firms such as Currys sent me a card with up to £2,000, Burtons menswear, £,1000 and in full total my wife and I were given cards for over £36,000. We used a pair of scissors on the whole lot and I have never in my life used a credit card.
In today's society there is little wonder people get into debt with offers of buy now and pay nothing for 12 months. That along with the belief we are entitled to have everything NOW and pay sometime way off in the blue yonder.

If you can't afford something now, how can you possibly say you will be able to in 12 months time? Sadly I read somewhere,(you may have a more accurate figure), that so long as over about 17% of people pay their agreements off the companies don't lose money. That also is shocking and needs changing.

[EDJOHNS]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

Getting people to agree to higher taxes? More chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas!! Though I do agree with you. My age agenda is more that youngsters leaving school(and earlier), have little spare anyway and should be encouraged to save just a little every week. Once they are on "Adult" wages is time enough for them to be hit.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

Getting people to agree to higher taxes? More chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas!! Though I do agree with you. My age agenda is more that youngsters leaving school(and earlier), have little spare anyway and should be encouraged to save just a little every week. Once they are on "Adult" wages is time enough for them to be hit.

Do you proof read before you press send?

[EDJOHNS]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

Getting people to agree to higher taxes? More chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas!! Though I do agree with you. My age agenda is more that youngsters leaving school(and earlier), have little spare anyway and should be encouraged to save just a little every week. Once they are on "Adult" wages is time enough for them to be hit.

Do you proof read before you press send?

Is there really any point in doing so? No matter what is written some jackass delights in taking things wrongly.

[EDJOHNS]

she struggles to work even though her health is not the best. Do you honestly tell me you think that is right?

No.

The way the WASPI women have been treated is scandalous. Many of them left school at 16 (I did too but I'm not a woman) and many of them were on lower pay because they were female. Also, as you state - private pensions and similar products were never even talked about in the 70's/80's - not for most people anyway.

My pension age has been put back too, only for a year, and with a lot more notice - however that wasn't the deal.

I remember an uncle (by marriage), who managed a mens clothing factory in Middlesbrough had a pension scheme built into his total wage packet in the late 60's, and can vaguely remember such packages being mentioned in the 80's, but only for the upper levels of management. Not even supervisors etc had such options. The common guy on the work floor I have no idea when the concept was first mentioned

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Just to give you an idea of the problem Labour faced, my wife's cousin is married to the aunt of our local MP ( in West Yorkshire).
At a family party last week she was telling me that she and a few other family members were not going to vote for their relative because they couldn't look themselves in the mirror and know that they had played a part in supporting Jeremy Corbyn

I understand not wanting to support Corbyn.

What I don't understand is choosing to support Johnson instead. I can't get my head around anyone who isn't upper-middle class having any sympathy with him.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

If you can't then that perhaps illustrates the issue.

In my view it was nothing to do with wealth or social status it was about a feeling of betrayal and being ignored and patronised by the perceived liberal elites pontificating on Twitter and in The Guardian, the vast majority of whom have gone from school to university to political research and have never done an honest day's work in their lives.

I suppose the same could be said about Trump in the USA what is the appeal to blue collar voters? who knows.

Anyway we've got to make the best of it now.

[lo36789]

Actually completely agree it is the responsibility of the individual but unfortunately your mind doesn't work like that.

Kids need to be taught properly about the value of money at an early age they aren't - and the shops and advertisers are well versed in how to sell things to people who can't really afford it but basically give them a false impression of how much they can.

This is a little bit of piece though. The challenge with the NHS in its current form it is too expensive so either it needs more money in or needs to spend less.

Nobody buys into paying more tax - well some do but other like the infamous "I'm not in the top %" bloke earning over £80k in Bolton just won't and any attempt to tax business more is seen as a blocker on progress.

So you are left with spending less. The only way to do it without a degredation of service is to make the service more efficient. The way to do that for a national health service is to look a lot more broadly at health and not just when someone become ill...most peoples health could be improved with better diet, more exercise and improved social engagement (all of these have both mental and physical health benefits)...

Spend more money there and it should reduce the bills elsewhere.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

Getting people to agree to higher taxes? More chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas!! Though I do agree with you. My age agenda is more that youngsters leaving school(and earlier), have little spare anyway and should be encouraged to save just a little every week. Once they are on "Adult" wages is time enough for them to be hit.

Do you proof read before you press send?

Is there really any point in doing so? No matter what is written some jackass delights in taking things wrongly.

What did I take wrong? You said the young should pay then said they shouldn’t. Make your mind up bro.

[EDJOHNS]

I'm not sure who your post is aimed at lo?

I was merely pointing out the WASPI women thing, however I feel that all people should pay the same NI stamp regardless of age - there seems to be a fashion now of putting age against age at the moment. Also we should all be paying a bit more too, not getting a cut like the new government is going to do.

We are led to believe that our NHS is the best in the world, but it isn't - and it isn't because some other countries have better ones - and they have better ones because they pay higher taxes.

Getting people to agree to higher taxes? More chance of Turkeys voting for Christmas!! Though I do agree with you. My age agenda is more that youngsters leaving school(and earlier), have little spare anyway and should be encouraged to save just a little every week. Once they are on "Adult" wages is time enough for them to be hit.

Do you proof read before you press send?

Is there really any point in doing so? No matter what is written some jackass delights in taking things wrongly.

What did I take wrong? You said the young should pay then said they shouldn’t. Make your mind up bro.

What I actually said was .... "once established in the workplace at say 25 years of age" ......... the figures should be hiked.
NOWHERE did I state kids leaving school and just on the job scene should be paying more. Yes they should pay SOMETHING as soon as they start work, as we all did in our time, but if we need to raise more money then as I said, once established on adult wages is time enough to up the anti.
Not sure where you see any different.

[EDJOHNS]

Actually completely agree it is the responsibility of the individual but unfortunately your mind doesn't work like that.

Nobody buys into paying more tax - well some do but other like the infamous "I'm not in the top %" bloke earning over £80k in Bolton just won't and any attempt to tax business more is seen as a blocker on progress.

A good starting point would be to sort out the loopholes with companies such as Amazon

[Darlogramps]

Ted seems to think young people aren’t paying anything towards the NHS. Except they already do through National Insurance etc, like everyone else. So why should this group (let’s say 25-35) be targeted with increased taxes? Given the financial pressures facing young people, more so than previous generations faced (increased rents, inability to buy their own homes, lower paid jobs when starting out), it seems a little vindictive for someone who is pension age (as Ted has previously said he is) to be demanding they pay more. This seems very much like “changing the contract” he claims shouldn’t happen to older people. So why is it OK to “change the contract” for younger people? Genuine question.

Again, the principle of younger people, who use the NHS less, subsidising care for the elderly, who are both better off and require the service more is both unfair and completely illogical. It will never happen.

And for reasons I’ve explained above, simply raising more money doesn’t solve the problem. The more population increases and the more life expectancy goes up, more and more money will be needed. The only solution is to radically change the NHS. But all attempts to do so are denounced as attempts at American style insurance and privatisation. This scaremongering from groups with vested interests is what’s crippling the NHS and preventing the critical reform the service so desperately needs.

[EDJOHNS]

Ted seems to think young people aren’t paying anything towards the NHS. Except they already do through National Insurance etc, like everyone else. So why should this group (let’s say 25-35) be targeted with increased taxes? Given the financial pressures facing young people, more so than previous generations faced (increased rents, inability to buy their own homes, lower paid jobs when starting out), it seems a little vindictive for someone who is pension age (as Ted has previously said he is) to be demanding they pay more. This seems very much like “changing the contract” he claims shouldn’t happen to older people. So why is it OK to “change the contract” for younger people? Genuine question.

Again, the principle of younger people, who use the NHS less, subsidising care for the elderly, who are both better off and require the service more is both unfair and completely illogical. It will never happen.

And for reasons I’ve explained above, simply raising more money doesn’t solve the problem. The more population increases and the more life expectancy goes up, more and more money will be needed. The only solution is to radically change the NHS. But all attempts to do so are denounced as attempts at American style insurance and privatisation. This scaremongering from groups with vested interests is what’s crippling the NHS and preventing the critical reform the service so desperately needs.

Yet again this idiot changes totally what I said for his own ends, which is simply to argue and cause trouble.

NO .... " why should this group (let’s say 25-35)", Simply younger kids pay as now, and once they hit the point of EARNING AN ADULT wage, and taking the age of 25 simply as an example when most will have finished Uni or an apprenticeship, (as I said previously), to be the point where they start to pay into some form of pension scheme. I really don't see what is hard to understand about that, unless of course, you just want to continue your previous argument with anything I say.

Neither, was I the 1 to say things need to change, I merely said that to change things for older people who have paid in for 40 years or more is wrong morally and the change needs to be aimed more at the starting end of paying in. Too difficult to understand?
I would think you would find that most people start looking for a pension scheme,if not provided by their company, when they are thinking of settling down, that, as a norm in the UK is round the mid 20's onwards, thus to join a pension scheme at that sort of age makes sense to protect their future. If that be private or state run makes really no difference.

NO youngster pays for my medical care. I paid my taxes for 50 years to cover that and still pay now on my savings despite the fact I used virtually no health care throughout my life as, thankfully, I was fit.

Yet again, I agree with your last paragraph. The NHS DOES require reform, even more, the reasons you give are all valid, population boom, (you could always go the chinese way and only 1 child per couple) !!!! No thanks on that 1. Living longer,(OK let's put people down when they hit 55 to solve the problem altogether), but to have men and women pay for 40+ years then tell them they have to work and extra 3-5 years is morally wrong. That sort of change has to come with those just starting out or only a short period into the contract they had with the government.

I do wish when you want to discuss with me you would stop changing what I said to fit your latest winge. You did say some time ago you were happy to do so,(Naaa, I can't be arsed to go back and copy-paste to prove my point). So often you take things off at an unneeded tangent just so you can have a dig and show what a lovely chap you are.

[Darlogramps]

Yet again this idiot changes totally what I said for his own ends, which is simply to argue and cause trouble.

NO .... " why should this group (let’s say 25-35)", Simply younger kids pay as now, and once they hit the point of EARNING AN ADULT wage, and taking the age of 25 simply as an example when most will have finished Uni or an apprenticeship, (as I said previously), to be the point where they start to pay into some form of pension scheme. I really don't see what is hard to understand about that, unless of course, you just want to continue your previous argument with anything I say.

Putting your thin-skinned paranoia to one side, a lot of people in this thread seem confused by what you’re arguing.

What you’re asking for already happens. When young people start working, they pay National Insurance. And I think pretty much every company by law is required to get its workers to pay into a pension scheme.

So everything you’re arguing for already happens.

Because if you think they don’t, then you’re incorrect and if you think they do then you’re asking for them to pay more. And that too would be morally wrong because, as I keep saying getting poorer younger people to pay more for better off older people’s healthcare is fundamentally an unfair idea.

Neither, was I the 1 to say things need to change, I merely said that to change things for older people who have paid in for 40 years or more is wrong morally and the change needs to be aimed more at the starting end of paying in. Too difficult to understand?

So you agree you want to change things for younger people? Good, excellent. That means you did say you want things to change.

There is no contract when it comes to paying National Insurance. It’s a tax based on income and rises and falls in line with Government policy. To increase this based on age would be discriminatory in my opinion.

I do wish when you want to discuss with me you would stop changing what I said to fit your latest winge. You did say some time ago you were happy to do so,(Naaa, I can't be arsed to go back and copy-paste to prove my point). So often you take things off at an unneeded tangent just so you can have a dig and show what a lovely chap you are.

If you want to go on about “lovely chap” Ted....

You’re the one who pretended you were dead just to get a laugh out of Darlo_Pete.

And that’s before we get on to your failed takeover of Darlington FC. Don’t be taking the moral high ground because it won’t wash.

The issue is, whenever you’re struggling in an argument you just demonise everyone else you’re arguing against. In this thread, you’ve misunderstood something and taken it as a personal attack. I’m actually trying to have a reasonable conversation with you about and the NHS. I haven’t changed anything you’ve said, I haven’t twisted anything. It’s all quoted directly. Wind down the outrage and actually try discussing things instead of attacking others when they don’t agree with you.

[EDJOHNS]

Yet again this idiot changes totally what I said for his own ends, which is simply to argue and cause trouble.

NO .... " why should this group (let’s say 25-35)", Simply younger kids pay as now, and once they hit the point of EARNING AN ADULT wage, and taking the age of 25 simply as an example when most will have finished Uni or an apprenticeship, (as I said previously), to be the point where they start to pay into some form of pension scheme. I really don't see what is hard to understand about that, unless of course, you just want to continue your previous argument with anything I say.

Putting your thin-skinned paranoia to one side, a lot of people in this thread seem confused by what you’re arguing.

What you’re asking for already happens. When young people start working, they pay National Insurance. And I think pretty much every company by law is required to get its workers to pay into a pension scheme.

So everything you’re arguing for already happens.

Because if you think they don’t, then you’re incorrect and if you think they do then you’re asking for them to pay more. And that too would be morally wrong because, as I keep saying getting poorer younger people to pay more for better off older people’s healthcare is fundamentally an unfair idea.

Neither, was I the 1 to say things need to change, I merely said that to change things for older people who have paid in for 40 years or more is wrong morally and the change needs to be aimed more at the starting end of paying in. Too difficult to understand?

So you agree you want to change things for younger people? Good, excellent. That means you did say you want things to change.

There is no contract when it comes to paying National Insurance. It’s a tax based on income and rises and falls in line with Government policy. To increase this based on age would be discriminatory in my opinion.

I do wish when you want to discuss with me you would stop changing what I said to fit your latest winge. You did say some time ago you were happy to do so,(Naaa, I can't be arsed to go back and copy-paste to prove my point). So often you take things off at an unneeded tangent just so you can have a dig and show what a lovely chap you are.

If you want to go on about “lovely chap” Ted....

You’re the one who pretended you were dead just to get a laugh out of Darlo_Pete.

And that’s before we get on to your failed takeover of Darlington FC. Don’t be taking the moral high ground because it won’t wash.

The issue is, whenever you’re struggling in an argument you just demonise everyone else you’re arguing against. In this thread, you’ve misunderstood something and taken it as a personal attack. I’m actually trying to have a reasonable conversation with you about and the NHS. I haven’t changed anything you’ve said, I haven’t twisted anything. It’s all quoted directly. Wind down the outrage and actually try discussing things instead of attacking others when they don’t agree with you.

No doubt you believe the garbage you write. Funny how so many people take you to task for twisting things yet it is, according to you,always the other person doing the twisting.

PLEASE, put up any hard EVIDENCE to support this.

"If you want to go on about “lovely chap” Ted....

You’re the one who pretended you were dead just to get a laugh out of Darlo_Pete.

And that’s before we get on to your failed takeover of Darlington FC. Don’t be taking the moral high ground because it won’t wash."

Going on past evidence, I am sure the admins will be happy to block me if you have a single shred of real evidence.

If not, admins, could you please ask this nut case to desist as he spoils thread after thread with his waffling.

[Fatty eats roadkill]

Gramps is right though. You’ve flip flopped more than a flip flop factory!
Care to answer what I said earlier about removing the right to strike then being unable to take the Government to court?
That’s more insidious and dangerous than getting the young to pay more for you. Have a good think about what that means.

[EDJOHNS]

Gramps is right though. You’ve flip flopped more than a flip flop factory!
Care to answer what I said earlier about removing the right to strike then being unable to take the Government to court?
That’s more insidious and dangerous than getting the young to pay more for you. Have a good think about what that means.

I have not flip flopped, I took it as read,(silly me) that people would understand I meant the young carry on as now until the point where they have to increase contributions. Likewise, I did not as pop says say 15-25 I simply, at all times, used 25 as a theoretical starting point for people to start paying more.
Having paid in for 50 years and luckily never claimed unemployment benefit, (don't forget either that in my day there was no such thing as maternity leave for men), I rather take exception to anyone saying the young are paying for any treatment I have now. Having paid in, as directed, no not directed, as taken from me with no option by the government for the entirety of my working life I kept my part of the "agreement", (or whatever you want to call it). I am entitled to now receive treatment as and when required.

Were you talking to me earlier re' taking the government to court and the right to strike? If so you are talking to the wrong 1. Look back just a few comments and you will see I wanted to sue the government for my wife over her having to work another 5 years but she refused to be named and I could not go forward without an example. I think that shows my stance on that topic, and as for striking. Never been in a union, don't believe in them, would have no problem whatever in walking past a picket to go to work.
When you have the likes of Scargill receiving £285,000 as an interest free loan,(that was never repaid but written off), half way through the miners strike while kids were out on the streets begging my disgust will never diminish for the sheep that automatically follow what their "leaders" say without looking at what their actions will do long term.
But that is another topic.

[biccynana]

(don't forget either that in my day there was no such thing as maternity leave for men)

There still isn't, unless I've missed a pretty major scientific breakthrough

[Darlogramps]

Gramps is right though. You’ve flip flopped more than a flip flop factory!
Care to answer what I said earlier about removing the right to strike then being unable to take the Government to court?
That’s more insidious and dangerous than getting the young to pay more for you. Have a good think about what that means.

I have not flip flopped, I took it as read,(silly me) that people would understand I meant the young carry on as now until the point where they have to increase contributions. Likewise, I did not as pop says say 15-25 I simply, at all times, used 25 as a theoretical starting point for people to start paying more.
Having paid in for 50 years and luckily never claimed unemployment benefit, (don't forget either that in my day there was no such thing as maternity leave for men), I rather take exception to anyone saying the young are paying for any treatment I have now. Having paid in, as directed, no not directed, as taken from me with no option by the government for the entirety of my working life I kept my part of the "agreement", (or whatever you want to call it). I am entitled to now receive treatment as and when required.

There is no agreement or contract. You pay/have paid National Insurance like everyone else. Because you’re so arrogant and self-entitled, you seem to think doing what everyone else has done grants you special privileges. It doesn’t. The NHS is free at the point of use for everyone.

Young people pay National Insurance which is used today fund the NHS. If you’re older, as you’ve said you are, and use the NHS, asking young people to pay more means you want them to contribute more to your healthcare.

The point you refuse to answer, because you can’t, is there’s no logic or fairness in asking poorer young people to pay for the healthcare of better off, wealthier older people who use the NHS more.

All I’ve said is this fundamentally unfair. You don’t like it, but that’s because you’re so thin-skinned and paranoid, you see disagreement as a personal attack.