Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)
Discussion
S600BSB said:
He's toast.
Having risked visiting the Daily Wail comments section, I think you may well be right.Unfortunately his fan base will fund him for the rest of his life.
While they were having piss ups and saying it’s normal to have alcohol at the workplace, my wedding was cancelled 3 times. Eventually we went for a registry office wedding under the rules at the time, because my mum was very unwell (not from covid).
One week later, she died on the same night as the ‘ABBA party’. 2 weeks later we had funeral where barely anyone could attend, and it was made quite clear we couldn’t stay by the graveside and talk to the few people who were allowed to come. No hymns either.
In a case of rule breaking I approve of, the wonderful NHS staff who were looking after her, on realising she had hours left, rang us all and said ‘f
k it, just come in and say goodbye’, something I will be forever grateful to them for doing.There’s thousands of stories far more harrowing than mine. I utterly hate the guy.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:fat80b said:
Apart from Sir Kier’s special LTA statute for his pension of course. But apart from that one I think you’re right 
Fully get why people will play the hypocrisy angle about the look of his DPP pension but do people think he personally negotiated that or do people think he took a job and that was how the pension scheme was setup by his employer?768 said:
No, far worse than that. People think he's financially benefited from it and then set out to deny that financial benefit being offered to others. No one thinks he wrote his own name on the legislation, someone else did that for him.
Has he benefited from it?I don't know enough about how different types of pension work to know.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
No, far worse than that. People think he's financially benefited from it and then set out to deny that financial benefit being offered to others. No one thinks he wrote his own name on the legislation, someone else did that for him.
Has he benefited from it?I don't know enough about how different types of pension work to know.
768 said:
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:768 said:
No, far worse than that. People think he's financially benefited from it and then set out to deny that financial benefit being offered to others. No one thinks he wrote his own name on the legislation, someone else did that for him.
Has he benefited from it?I don't know enough about how different types of pension work to know.
Why didn't the tories repeal it if they didn't like it.
it was something that is offered to all leaving DPP.s
we have no idea if SKS will benefit from it.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: And his employer would presumably have done the same whoever had the role of DPP.
How has he benefited from it?
He hasn't yet. I guess one option would be to remove this provision if Labour restore the LTA when in office? Personally, I don't agree with the LTA at all - it's a punitive stealth tax - so hope Labour have a rethink! How has he benefited from it?
Gecko1978 said:
Sadly I don't think so.
My guess 1 week suspension which frees him up to do more speaking arrangements make more cash etc. Then he is there till the GE a thorn in Rishi side (not a bad thing, then looses his seat retires with millions etc
He looses and he still wins and the tax payer had just made his legal team more cash.
Yep, this.My guess 1 week suspension which frees him up to do more speaking arrangements make more cash etc. Then he is there till the GE a thorn in Rishi side (not a bad thing, then looses his seat retires with millions etc
He looses and he still wins and the tax payer had just made his legal team more cash.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: And his employer would presumably have done the same whoever had the role of DPP.
How has he benefited from it?
By being given somewhere he can stick his income knowing he'll never have to pay tax on it.How has he benefited from it?
Is this some contorted argument that everyone else could have done the same hoping that they wouldn't have a lifetime limit by some miracle that may or may not happen and so there's no benefit to him having his own pension legislation until he's actually spent it and has the receipts?
Pensions are a benefit. This one is in his name.
768 said:
By being given somewhere he can stick his income knowing he'll never have to pay tax on it.
Is this some contorted argument that everyone else could have done the same hoping that they wouldn't have a lifetime limit by some miracle that may or may not happen and so there's no benefit to him having his own pension legislation until he's actually spent it and has the receipts?
Pensions are a benefit. This one is in his name.
No it's me now knowing how the pension scheme setup for the role of DPP works.Is this some contorted argument that everyone else could have done the same hoping that they wouldn't have a lifetime limit by some miracle that may or may not happen and so there's no benefit to him having his own pension legislation until he's actually spent it and has the receipts?
Pensions are a benefit. This one is in his name.
Can he still pay into it or is it (as I would hope) closed to new money from the point he left the DPP like my past workplace pension schemes are?
As I said I can see why it looks hypocritical but I'm also pretty sure I couldn't tell my employer the type of pension scheme I wanted to have it's just what comes with the role.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: No it's me now knowing how the pension scheme setup for the role of DPP works.
Can he still pay into it or is it (as I would hope) closed to new money from the point he left the DPP like my past workplace pension schemes are?
As I said I can see why it looks hypocritical but I'm also pretty sure I couldn't tell my employer the type of pension scheme I wanted to have it's just what comes with the role.
Do subsequent DPPs benefit from the same or similar schemes?Can he still pay into it or is it (as I would hope) closed to new money from the point he left the DPP like my past workplace pension schemes are?
As I said I can see why it looks hypocritical but I'm also pretty sure I couldn't tell my employer the type of pension scheme I wanted to have it's just what comes with the role.
valiant said:
Do subsequent DPPs benefit from the same or similar schemes?
No idea.If Starmer sat down and negotiated a unique type of pension package that only he has and that he now says other people shouldn't be able to have then I'd agree that would be hypocritical.
What I think more likely is that he accepted a job and that's the type of pension that came with it and it would be the type of pension that came with it no matter who got the job.
Who knows?
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: No it's me now knowing how the pension scheme setup for the role of DPP works.
Can he still pay into it or is it (as I would hope) closed to new money from the point he left the DPP like my past workplace pension schemes are?
As I said I can see why it looks hypocritical but I'm also pretty sure I couldn't tell my employer the type of pension scheme I wanted to have it's just what comes with the role.
It's not a DPP workplace scheme. It's his personal lifetime uncapped allowance.Can he still pay into it or is it (as I would hope) closed to new money from the point he left the DPP like my past workplace pension schemes are?
As I said I can see why it looks hypocritical but I'm also pretty sure I couldn't tell my employer the type of pension scheme I wanted to have it's just what comes with the role.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said:valiant said:
Do subsequent DPPs benefit from the same or similar schemes?
No idea.If Starmer sat down and negotiated a unique type of pension package that only he has and that he now says other people shouldn't be able to have then I'd agree that would be hypocritical.
What I think more likely is that he accepted a job and that's the type of pension that came with it and it would be the type of pension that came with it no matter who got the job.
Who knows?
Personally I don't like these kind of deals, especially when it comes to government roles as it invariably leads to "exception" but maybe there is a very good reason why this particular instrument is offered to DPP's which should be better explained.
What I find hypocritical is that the tories were in power when this was done but yet seem happy to go all socialist when it suits them.
768 said:
It's not a DPP workplace scheme. It's his personal lifetime uncapped allowance.
AIUI the uncapped bit relates to the pension accrued whilst working as DPP. Which is way less than the current (and soon to be abolished) LTA. I can’t see what all the fuss is about personally, if you ignore the opportunities for cheap political point scoring.sugerbear said:
labour have called out that this type of deal was offered to every DPP, so it wasn't unique to SKS.
Personally I don't like these kind of deals, especially when it comes to government roles as it invariably leads to "exception" but maybe there is a very good reason why this particular instrument is offered to DPP's which should be better explained.
What I find hypocritical is that the tories were in power when this was done but yet seem happy to go all socialist when it suits them.
“This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor." Personally I don't like these kind of deals, especially when it comes to government roles as it invariably leads to "exception" but maybe there is a very good reason why this particular instrument is offered to DPP's which should be better explained.
What I find hypocritical is that the tories were in power when this was done but yet seem happy to go all socialist when it suits them.
– Martin Luther King, Jr.
cgt2 said:
Gecko1978 said:
Good I hope they destroy the party. I want a center right party an center left party and a few finge parties in parchment not a center right facade that robs from rich a poor alike or a center left party they essentially becomes Marxist and I don't want fringe parties greens snp Liberal to disappear they are their to provide an element of balance
The majority of the electorate is just right of centre. Loonies on the extreme right and left just don't understand this, not just here but in many countries. Braverman and Corbyn could never represent the views of a moderate electorate.It's baffling how the millions spent on polling and market research cannot convey to politicians the simple fact that normal people don't want extreme agendas and invented bogeymen.
As a lifetime Tory until 2016 I agree. Time for a complete reset.
The other thing to cover is that people predominantly vote on the basis of political identity rather than their agreement with specific policies.
If you actually poll people there are substantial numbers of people who might be classed as authoritarian, the average economic center of gravity is pretty socialist and interventionalist but then the average very on social issues is pretty conservative. This is however offset by the fact that most people are not overly concerned about a large range of issues so you can do things that the majority don't currently support because they are socially conservative but which they won't actively oppose.
Also see the Overton Window, which is a process of moving the acceptable margins of political discourse.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff