Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

Author
Discussion

bitchstewie

45,610 posts

197 months

Yesterday (12:17)
quotequote all
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.

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

8,532 posts

147 months

Yesterday (12:19)
quotequote all
bhstewie 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?


bitchstewie

45,610 posts

197 months

Yesterday (12:27)
quotequote all
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?

768

12,152 posts

83 months

Yesterday (12:32)
quotequote all
bhstewie 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.

sugerbear

3,073 posts

145 months

Yesterday (12:45)
quotequote all
bhstewie 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?
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.

Riff Raff

4,867 posts

182 months

Yesterday (12:49)
quotequote all
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.

Gweeds

4,450 posts

39 months

Yesterday (12:50)
quotequote all
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."

– Martin Luther King, Jr.

Spare tyre

8,065 posts

117 months

Yesterday (12:53)
quotequote all
How much more tax payers money can be wasted on this stuff, bonkers

Talksteer

4,376 posts

220 months

Yesterday (12:58)
quotequote all
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.
As has been pointed out by others more people voted for a left of center party than a right of center party its just that the right of center people cluster into a single part.

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.

DeejRC

4,547 posts

69 months

Yesterday (13:02)
quotequote all
Aren’t we doing Kiers pension on his thread?


768

12,152 posts

83 months

Yesterday (13:06)
quotequote all
Wasn't me who brought it up. I'm happy to leave it there though so you can all concentrate more on Boris. smile

Rivenink

2,911 posts

93 months

Yesterday (13:21)
quotequote all
Spare tyre said:
How much more tax payers money can be wasted on this stuff, bonkers
Quite agree.


Ensuring honesty and integrity in politics isn't important at all.


The money would be far better spent on useless PPE equipment, or non-existent ferries, or maybe a pointless garden bridge accross the Thames.

S600BSB

2,124 posts

93 months

Yesterday (13:26)
quotequote all
Rivenink said:
Spare tyre said:
How much more tax payers money can be wasted on this stuff, bonkers
Quite agree.


Ensuring honesty and integrity in politics isn't important at all.


The money would be far better spent on useless PPE equipment, or non-existent ferries, or maybe a pointless garden bridge accross the Thames.
Just lock him up now?

Squadrone Rosso

2,525 posts

134 months

Yesterday (13:38)
quotequote all
Was that it for the hearing or is there more to come?

thetapeworm

10,514 posts

226 months

Yesterday (13:48)
quotequote all

The problem for me is that if there's no comeback on any of this, for Boris in this case or people like Mone and others for various other things then we continue with a public that thinks "they're all as bad as each other", a reluctance to vote because "what's the point if they're all the same" and then we end up being governed by a party voted for by an even bigger minority that we do now.

We need a proper political clean-up but who would do it?

DeejRC

4,547 posts

69 months

Yesterday (14:24)
quotequote all
Isn’t Mone under a proper police investigation currently? It hasn’t been dropped I don’t think?


rscott

13,996 posts

178 months

Yesterday (14:44)
quotequote all
bhstewie 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?
I believe it's basically the same as the pension arrangement agreed with judges.

Bannock

1,919 posts

17 months

Yesterday (15:25)
quotequote all
cgt2 said:
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.
Sadly about 17 million of us voted for exactly this in a referendum in 2016. This encouraged the Tory party to believe that was exactly what people wanted, and here we are, the only thing the Tory party can come up with any more is extreme agendas (e.g. Rwanda policy) and more invented bogeymen (ECHR, EU law in Northern Ireland, illegal immigration "swarms").

The sooner they are defeated, and defeated comprehensively, removing all the cancerous MPs they have like Raab, Braverman, Gullis, Anderson etc, the sooner we might return to a more moderate, productive and progressive politics.

Like you I'm an ex-Tory voter. It'll be a very, very long time before I consider lending them my vote again.

ChevronB19

4,778 posts

150 months

Yesterday (15:38)
quotequote all
Spare tyre said:
How much more tax payers money can be wasted on this stuff, bonkers
You think a PM (allegedly) lying isn’t worth investigating?

Sorry, *that’s* bonkers.

XCP

16,313 posts

215 months

Yesterday (16:05)
quotequote all
I tend to assume they are lying until shown otherwise. Johnson is either incredibly stupid or lying. Neither is a good look.