Government reconsidering £140 State Pension plan

John Fitzsimons
by Lovemoney Staff John Fitzsimons on 18 September 2012  |  Comments 34 comments

Reports suggest the Government is getting cold feet over its £140 State Pension revamp.

Government reconsidering £140 State Pension plan

The Government is having a rethink of its plans to introduce a flat-rate £140 State Pension.

According to a report in the Financial Times, the Government has only just realised that many people will lose out – or at least not benefit – from the changes. As a result, Prime Minister David Cameron has put the brakes on the reforms.

How things work at the moment

The table below outlines the Basic State Pension various people can qualify for:

Circumstances

Basic State Pension per week

Single man or woman

£107.45

Married man or woman or civil partner, who qualify with their own National Insurance contributions

£107.45

Married man, woman or civil partner using his wife’s her husband’s or their civil partner’s National Insurance contributions record

£64.40

 

There is a ‘triple lock’ in place to work out how much that should increase each year. The State Pension jumps depending on which is the highest of the growth in average earnings, the rate of inflation or 2.5%.

However, there’s also an additional State Pension to think about. It’s had all sorts of different names in the past, including State Earnings-Related Pension Scheme, and is money from the Government on top of the State Pension. How much you get depends on your earnings.

And then there’s Pension Credit, which is available to poorer pensioners, and bumps up the State Pension to nearly £140 a week.

The whole system is complicated and confusing, which is why the idea of a single flat rate was a popular idea.

The planned reforms

Under the reforms, the second State Pension element would be ditched entirely, with the State Pension bumped up to £140 a week.

For more, you can read State Pension to jump by £40 a week

Not everyone benefits

The problem with the planned reforms is that there will be losers. For starters, existing pensioners won’t qualify for the flat rate. And given older people are far more likely to vote than younger people, the Government clearly feels uneasy about angering them, particularly after the Granny Tax farce earlier this year.

Those who previously would have benefitted from the additional State Pension are also unlikely to be big fans of the reforms.

What happens now?

It’s no secret that the Government has been concerned about the cost of welfare reform. That’s why the Prime Minister supposedly tried to move Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, in the reshuffle.

Back in July the Government announced the White Paper on pension reform had been postponed until the autumn. That paper is still expected to be published, though reports suggest it will be “consultative rather than prescriptive”, highlighting alternative options.

More on pensions:

Auto enrolment: how NEST will invest your compulsory pension

Saving in a pension? You are as well off on benefits

Annuity rates cut 23 times since July!

Cut the cost of passing on your pension

Enjoyed this? Show it some love

Twitter
General

Comments (34)

  • JOHN MAXWELL
    Love rating 56
    JOHN MAXWELL said

    when the state pension was increased by 5.2% this year the calculation of guaranteed pension credit meant a reduction for some people. i know of one instance where the actual increase in total pension income was only 2.5%, much less than the government boasting about how much better off pensioners would be.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mrs weatherley
    Love rating 31
    mrs weatherley said

    better than my pension which was ue last year but now not payable until next

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Basia02a
    Love rating 43
    Basia02a said

    Im afraid I dont remember any government boasts John. There is surely a problem when pensioners are getting 5% plus, and a lot of people working are getting nothing although I accept this is unusual. I thought initially that the government would move pensions to £140 and drop the pension credit. Funding this in part by the removal of the government dept managing pension credit. This made sense. Then they started saying it was only for new pensioners. SERPS would just go etc, so people who paid in more got nothing for it. This was fraught with problems. Surely the aim should be to do away with pension credit and have an acceptable pension, and save on admin?

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • fenemore
    Love rating 202
    fenemore said

    Sounds like this project is going the way of others - into the waste basket. This one deserved it. I am just surprised that our "leaders" couldn't see the risks of having a 2-tier system which would leave existing pensioners on the lower tier.

    Even without the "grey vote" risk, it was grossly unfair - current recipients would have paid a full 45 years worth of contributions only to receive the lower tier. Beneficiaries of the higher tier need only have a 30 year contribution record. On which planet could this be described as equitable?

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • J. C. North yorkshire
    Love rating 6
    J. C. North yorkshire said

    I am one of the unfortunate women who was born in 1954, the government have stolen, yes stolen over £25,000 from me by raising my state pension age to 65 1/2. I have worked and paid a stamp from the age of 15. Even if they do raise the basic pension I doubt I will ever get my £25,000 back !!!

    Work hard save your money for later in life in order to "take care of yourself" then get penalised.

    I'm not sure they will ever get it right when they are paying money out left right and centre to people who have never paid a penny in.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  6 loves
  • raycam1
    Love rating 1
    raycam1 said

    To J C North. Even worse news. Women born in 1954 will not receive the state pension until they are 66 +months depending on the month of their birth.

    A potential loss close to £35000

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • r
    Love rating 67
    r said

    When the State Pension scheme was set up in 1948 by a Labour government, it was intended that every contributor would have a personal pension account, paid for by deductions from wages and topped up with tax relief on those payments. However, as it proceeded through Parliament, it was decided to pay the pension from current account, which means that the Government didn't have to set up personal accounts. No consideration was taken of longevity - the average payable pension was about three years. Until we have a government with the guts to set up a pension scheme properly, we will always have tinkering at the edges because every government wants to take money and "reduce expenditure"; that is why our pension is considered a "benefit" and not a "right". Come the revolution when we can have a government of non-career politicians who can balance a household budget!

    r.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Severian
    Love rating 6
    Severian said

    Why are women on here complaining that the government has "stolen" their pension?

    You never had a pension - just a promise from previous governments that if you paid more tax (which they called National Insurance) then some future government would pay you a certain amount of benefit from a certain age.

    NONE of the NI they took from you was saved or invested - it was spent years ago. There is no pension to steal.

    All you have lost is the promise of money made by some politicians who are long dead and buried, and today's politicians can't afford the promises made by others.

    The best advice I can give my children (and which I am working to) is to assume you will get NOTHING from the state, that way you will not be disappointed when you decide to stop working.

    If the current pensions debate proves one thing it is that you can NEVER take any government provided retirement income into a proper financial plan, because sure as eggs is eggs somewhere down the line a future government will shaft you.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • oldhenry
    Love rating 265
    oldhenry said

    I thinlk you all better realise that Osborne/Cameron think pensioners are 'well off' and a source of god tax increases. Osborne has scrapped the Age Pension Allowance. He has attached the inflation CPI indicator to pensions which does not reflect true cost increases. But kept RPI for tax increases, the sheer hypocrisy.

    I can see the basic pension being means tested before long to weed out those with their own private pensions. the squueze will continue and the grey vote seems to not bother at all, strange. I shall not vote for the pensioner-hater tories. I am UKIP.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • nosbort
    Love rating 124
    nosbort said

    Of course the real problem is that since Gordon Brown stole billions from all of our personal pensions it has become a much more relevant problem that the state pension will also give us nothing in return for tax paid.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • msmoneywise
    Love rating 27
    msmoneywise said

    @ oldhenry - Well said!! I've been UKIP since the party started. And nosbort, I agree. Blair and Brown beggared our country and I don't think I will ever collect a state pension, even though I was born in 1959. Our kids certainly can't expect anything for the money they pay in.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • spanmik
    Love rating 6
    spanmik said

    Teflon Tony, Gordon Brown and those "bloody thieving" bankers all contributed to the pension situation.

    Anyone know what Brown's nickname is?

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    Gordon Brown's nickname was McCavity, after the cat.

    If you don't know the poem, it's about a cat who was never there to shoulder the blame when things went wrong and the excrement came into contact with the air moving device.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • tindeanboy1
    Love rating 4
    tindeanboy1 said

    As with everything in this cock-eyed country, if you work and save for your retirement the government deems that your money should be shared with "the vulnerable" that haven't worked or saved.

    I notice that the government wants regional pay policies so that people that live in certain areas and work in the NHS get less pay than those in the south east.

    Curiously enough the government doesn't think that MPs need a regional pay policy though as this could be seen as unfair.

    Why can't we go back to old fashioned ideals that if you work and save you get to keep what you've amassed in your life and can pass it on to whoever you choose.

    Near us lives a 22 year old waster of a girl, never worked in her life and the Social have just sent her a £300 cheque for an underpayment.

    She had her eyebrows waxed, bought a new mobile phone and a bottle of vodka!

    Better for it they invested that money towards her pension...

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Aitken B
    Love rating 109
    Aitken B said

    r is right about the state pension. It was supposed to be paid for by NI (National Insurance) but in the way of all things governmental the linkage between NI and the State Pension was "eroded" in order to allow successive MPs to squander our money on thier pet projects. Any insurance company doing the same thing in such a blatant way would find themselves in Court.

    Also remember that Bliar and Brown were told about the looming pension problem in 1998. What di they do 1. Sack the MP who told them 2. massively enhance MPs' pension provisions (paid for y us) 3. Raid our private Pensions.

    This separation of revenue from its purpose also happened to the "Road Fund" which became Road Tax and then Vehicle Excise Duty all to allow the cheats and liars to say that it was just part of taxation and had no connection to paying for the roads. Same with parking metre fees and Speeding fines. They all became just other forms of revenue stream.

    Rip off Britain is alive and well and the biggest rip-off merchant is HMG. Yes even bigger than the banks although it was close.

    Never listen to what a politician says - only watch what they do and remember what they did with the promises they already made.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  4 loves
  • MK22
    Love rating 140
    MK22 said

    What a surprise, not! There used to be a time when your had to have private money to be an MP because it was the only way you could afford it. Now it is the case that because you are an MP you have private money and consequently don't care about anyone who hasn't. Until the MPs are really in it with us this sort of thing will continue, particularly with so called business men bleating about how hard done by they are and how they need to have all employment legislation scrapped as well as the need to pay employers NI and tax on business profits, etc, etc. Personally I can't wait for the Chinese to take over. And I'd love to think that if they were in power the Greens or UKIP would be any better, but as we've seen from the Lib-Dems......

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    What a joke, put the brakes on! Shows you how dumb our political leaders and thinkers are. I can assure you that by the time I retire this meager pension is going to be worth the eternal jack smith. Highway robbers dressed as politicians and economists. Bunch of crooks. They have been lying to the nation and we cannot do owt about it. Yes you can vote them in or out but it's not going to improve the pension levels or the living conditions of pensioners. Total disregard and utter contempt to our elderly generation. Think how they have been treated over the last few decades and ponder what the heck we have coming our way in a decade or two. Time to abandon ship and not take any government advise as its a load of bull. Look out for yourself as the government is not fit for purpose.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • nickpike
    Love rating 270
    nickpike said

    This government is a shambles. The previous bunch just want to destroy us. What hope is there and what are we supposed to vote for at the next GE?

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • norcoastactivist
    Love rating 15
    norcoastactivist said

    Tanni and nickpike, I can't agree more. As to who to vote for, try ukip they can't be any worse and at least they will bring us out of the EU fiasco. Pity Oliver Cromwell isn't still around, he had the right idea by marching into Parliament and kicking all the rabble out.

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • coloratura
    Love rating 61
    coloratura said

    Tanni and nickpike I'm afraid that you are very correct. I am old enough now to be a pensioner and I have seen Governments come and go and none of them really do anything for pensioners (or anyone else who hasn't got influence or power), except measley scraps just before the election - and that's Governments of whatever persuasion. I do not belong to any political party as I consider that they are more or less not even worth my time and shoe leather in voting. The problem is that the electorate as a whole are just afraid to try something different. Myself I will vote for Ukip as at least we will get a fortune back from note paying vast sums to the EU should Ukip get into power(and why have the other parties renaged on giving us a vote as they promised?) but I just think we all ought to be brave and vote for someone else rather than having this yo-yo Conservative (with Libs attached) to Labour (have been Libs attached in the past) and the Liberals have been useless as they are partly in power so no choice there then.

    Personally I think the only person you can rely on in this world is yourself. Even people who have worked hard and saved a bit for their pension then get nothing on their savings from the banks. We are being shafted from cradle to grave (they even tax your estate and if they could tax your bones they would). At least let's try something completely different.....and yes, because I've worked hard for many years and paid into the system, should they introduce a flat rate £140 then I will be worse off. If I was starting out again I wouldn't bother to work or save. At least I'd have a life of ease and probably be no worse off financially. Oh and to the politicians - I haven't forgotten anything so don't think you can buy my vote with a measley contribution just before the election (I still remember the "Granny Tax")

    Report on 18 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  3 loves
  • Skintsod
    Love rating 32
    Skintsod said

    There is some light at the end of the tunnel. Pensioners are living longer, so more of them are voting as a percentage of the population. Their vote is increasingly important. And apparently they are relatively active voters. Eventually they could be the largest single voting block. It's also the case that the government's treatment of Mum and Dad could sway younger voters too. For now it's UKIP for me. Unless, of course, somebody starts a "Pensioner Party".

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • mambach
    Love rating 33
    mambach said

    Last election I wrote across the ballot paper "If none of you can be bothered to solicit my vote, none of you deserve it" since none of them could even be bothered to put a leaflet through my door.

    Three others in my constituency did likewise. Imagine the fuss if millions of us did.

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • laplennerie
    Love rating 20
    laplennerie said

    I did read somewhere that any person settling here and naturalised would get this pension even though they had not paid into it via nat ins. That leaves me who has paid over the years rather peeved. May as well go self employed and avoid paying full amount of nat ins. Those that pay should get their reward and thoise that don't - should not get anything.

    Report on 19 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  2 loves
  • manyamickle
    Love rating 2
    manyamickle said

    On the back of successive goverments who encouraged us to save for our retirement and sold the benefits of not "contracting out" of the State Pension I have always been Contracted In to the Graduated Pension / SERPS / SP2 etc. Clearly these bunch of pirating politicians do not believe in terms such as CONTRACTED IN which strongly implies there is a CONTRACT between the Goverment and the individual. I have kept my side of the contract by paying the full NI rates for 45 years, but in 2016 when I should retire they intend to steal over £100 a week - yes £5k a year from my state pension so they can share it with some workshy scrounger or even worse, prop up the pensions of those who Contracted Out and put that saving in to their private pension. Absolute thieving liars the lot of them. So much for the "we will make sure that those who work hard and contribute will not be disadvantaged" rubbish.

    Report on 20 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • davidinnotts
    Love rating 2
    davidinnotts said

    Interesting, mambach. Maybe they couldn't manage to find your letterbox or even your door? - or had a dud distributor. I got 2-3 leaflets from all sides, each one emphasizing different points - not the same leaflet. And I got knocks on the door from two candidates, one with their local MP. No, we're not in a high-rent area; it's an old, mixed property area that gets missed by the free papers (which we'd like!) where most residents are out during the day.

    Could be that neither of us is typical.

    Report on 20 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • davidinnotts
    Love rating 2
    davidinnotts said

    laplennerie, Native British people who've never worked in their lives and never intend to will also get the basic pension, plus topups depending on circumstances. Naturalized foreigners have been found in all surveys (and there are plenty of them, going back a century) to be on average harder working than native-born people and less likely to accept government handouts out of shame that they'd need them - unlike many born here. so - on average - they put less strain on our social services/pension service than natives. And EU citizens are entitled to our benefits if they settle here, just as we're entitled to theirs if we settle there. Hence a lot of Brits buying property in France for their retirement. Fair's fair!

    Report on 20 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Let's put politics to aside for a moment. A pal of mine who worked in the middle east noticed something which beggered belief. Whilst we all contribute in some way shape or form to the treasury here in the UK. When we require benefits we have to prove we justify the framework like beggers and are thrown some pennies our way. Now check this out; in Saudi Arabia the natives all pay tax etc like we do, however they are also rewarded from the oil wealth/development/investments the state does with their (tax payers) money. On average a Saudi citizen receives £1000 a month just for being their citizen regardless of whether they work or how wealthy they are. This was a real eye opener for me as it seems like a fair way of ensuring people are kept away from begging and criminal enterprise. Note this is only open to citizens of that country. This system is also operating in other Middle Eastern states. Yes the Saudis have a fair few human right issues but on this issue of distributing the states wealth I can't believe them how good they are at it.

    Report on 21 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • Philmo
    Love rating 2
    Philmo said

    What gets me is - why aren't all unemployed [including the housing benefit] limited to £140?

    Seems fair to me!

    As opposed to paying out hundreds to wives of assylum seekers with 5 or 6 kids in London mansions!

    And to idle single mums in lovely flats!

    Give them just £140/wk and show them the door!

    Report on 21 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • sleak19
    Love rating 0
    sleak19 said

    The new worry is single mums with lots of kids comeing from eastern europe to live on the benefits .. Will move to the top of council housing , and pocket 36,000 year with 10 kids ( as per 1 mum in Boston , lincs with 10 kids demanding a bigger house) who only had 3 when she arrive from Lithuania in 2008 ).

    Report on 22 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • chuckysan
    Love rating 5
    chuckysan said

    I always thought that those who posted comments on here were well informed and had a knowledge of the subject they were commenting on. But it seems I was deluded ! If you choose to believe the propaganda in the media about Benefits then you should refrain from contributing to this page. My wife and I were both made redundant 11 months ago. We recieved very little in redundancy pay. We both apply for at least 6 jobs a fortnight but most of the time we do not even recieve an acknowledgement of our application. We both want to work as we have done for over 40 years each. If we don't manage to find 6 jobs to apply for, Jobcentreplus will automatically stop our Benefit. I am 59 and my wife is 57. we have both contibuted our Taxes and National Insurance for a total of 82 years. We now recieve Job Seekers Allowance as a joint claim. We recieve the grand sum of £111-50p a week between us, not each, between us. We have a mortgage to pay , Gas & Electric bills, a small amount of Council Tax and on top of these bills we have to feed ourselves. We are not entitled to any other Benefits and we are left to try to survive on our own. That is all a married couple recieve in Benefits, not the massive amounts the media and this obscene Government would have you believe. However, if we were refugees and had been in the Country for less than 6 months we would be eligible for Income Support, Free Housing and numerous other State Benefits.So now you have the facts, please stop bashing those in the same unfortunate position as us. Thankyou.

    Report on 24 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Chuckysan; welcome to the biggest rip off...benefits that barely get you by. Always easy to look at 'foreigners' but the problem really lies with the policy dictated by government. In my opinion everyone should get a minimum benefit of at least £20k, more if you have a mortgage or disability. We all pay in the tax and NI pot but rarely do we get a fair share. Benefits are supposed to help us to improve our chances of employment and further our chances of paying more tax etc as and when we do find a job. It's a shame the cut backs and savings affect those that are most vulnerable. Personally I'd reduce MP and. Councillor wages to half current level or even zero. I know volunteers at local residents groups who do a much better job for nowt.

    Report on 25 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves
  • davidinnotts
    Love rating 2
    davidinnotts said

    Tanni, first your Middle East comment. Those Middle East countries with a fortune coming in from oil revenues can AFFORD to pay out so much to natives - and they've been doing it for at least 40 years. It keeps the plebs from being restless and the powerful still get the majority of the oil revenues. Remember, these are not heavily populated places; they're mostly desert with a few cities, a few more fishing villages and some Bedouin encampments (some say that they're where the power is - all the powerful tribes and leaders are Bedouin).

    Most of the people in Saudi, Kuwait, Oman, etc. are incomers, and none of them have permanent residency (they can be kicked out as soon as they're not needed). If the UK had this much spare cash, we'd all be in gravy! As it is, even if all the wealth of the top 5% of UK earners was redistributed to the rest of us, it wouldn't be £1000 a year each, let along a month!

    Now your last remark. Handouts like this won't work - you need to do the sums. It's great to say that the lowest paid ought to be topped up to £20k a year; but I suppose then that us pensioners should get what? More? The same? And the not-so-badly-off who put a lot more into their jobs and have spent poorly-paid years training for those jobs? Should they get 50% more then £20K? Double? Or just the same? What about those who refuse to work well and are cunning enough to blag it off as hard work anyway? Should they still get the same? This is Union talk of the 60s, based on the Russian model which said 'equal rights for all' and meant 'everyone gets the same except Party members'. Lenin said, roughly, 'to everyone according to his need, from each according to his ability'. That was a disaster in practice, because what's fine in theory falls down under human greed and cheating - and that goes on everywhere.

    The reality is this: your plans for paying out in our 'gimmie' culture are all based on 'entitlement' with nothing said about 'responsibility'. The whole of the government's income wouldn't pay the benefits you think that need paying out. Try working this in a family with older teens - the kids want more in allowances than mum and dad bring home in pay, and angrily demand their 'rights' (the latest iPhone and trainers, of course!) Then who do they blame when they outspend the family income?

    And you want our country to be run by volunteers? We had that in the 19th century and look who turned up to volunteer! Today's UK society is much wealthier than then and the poorest half is very much better off. If you look at what today is counted as an 'essential', you'll get the point right away - telly, washing machine, mobile, car, enough cash to buy pre-prepared food so you don't need bother cooking - all these are recognized as 'basic human needs' even for the out-of-work with time on their hands. With all the struggle to keep up with the neighbours, we forget that in most countries, this is sheer luxury for the world's REAL poor - even those who consider themselves better off than their poor neighbours.

    Fact: take today's basic UK state benefits and allowances for a family of four. Transport yourself to Sao Paulo in Brazil, and set up there in a typical middle-class 4-bedroom flat (guards at the estate gates provided with the rent). You'd have enough spare cash after paying for insurance, kids' schooling and car, food, clothing, usual luxuries, etc. to hire a half-time COOK and a full-time MAID/NANNY at the going rate in Brazil. I worked it out once, with the help of a Brazilian friend, who was as gobsmacked as I was. Maybe Rich Britain should - together - cut our cloth according to our means. This and the last government have at least been trying persuade us to do it, but with the majority still determined to hang onto luxuries and spend over their incomes, it's a losing game! No, I don't trust governments, but nor can they buck human greed and foolishness.

    Report on 26 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • Tanni
    Love rating 91
    Tanni said

    Point taken, however we as citizens do not choose to do the sums and neither do we have the real power to do so. If we did we would do a better job. England wasnt won or created in a day, We forget that the entire magna carta, our constitution and implied rights were fought and won by the people ( with the backing of the barons and tribal leaders of England and influences from ruling Monarchies of Europe including Papal fiscal and political influence). Our leaders for the best part of a century seem to have lost perspective. We as a nation did have vast amounts of money and resources ( coal, gas, petroleum interests around the world, centre of finance, centre of commerce, our stock markets and the trade going on with the commonwealth/empire) non of the resources were given to the people apart from those able to invest in the privatisation of our national assets ( glorified share offerings from banks and the utility boards). We should and could have been governed with better foresight rather then short term gains to keep the people sweetened up via political violations of our sovereign wealth and resources. I agree if we all sold up and moved to Africa or South America our pounds would stretch further and we could have all the luxuries of the world. Why should we move, after all growth will continue and developing countries will catch up..so we keep moving and eventually move to the moon? We are a very hands on nation but over the last century we have allowed the market forces of consumerism and marketing to dictate how we live our lives. We have gave powers to the nanny state who babysits and decides what is good for us! Many people would live to their resources, but as our and leading western economies are focused on growth then the people are encouraged to live on credit. Exponential growth has side effects which result in recessions/booms to control the growth and lifestyles of all of us. These are all linked directly to the worlds governments including our own political and economic masters of disasters. It is about time we started being positive again in this country. I see an awful lot of negatives mentioned about foreigners taking our jobs and benefits, yet we forget that all these foreigners are needed to keep our growth growing and succesive government policies allow them in. They can be stopped at the borders but are not. We go and live in their countries yet we do not hear about them complaining. Time to grow up and take it on the chin. I am all for integration and immigration but in a managed way, not the negligent way it's done today. We are all children of Adam or in the eugenical theoretical world of Darwin; from monkeys, we should learn to adopt better planning and use of resources to ensure we have no poverty in the UK and that we do not use scapegoats as foreigners to highlight the failings of policy from the people we elect to govern us. The governments and policy makers plan for a fair few generations ahead...just the morons we've had governing us have been neglecting the interests of the people for their own gains. stop pointing fingers at one another, look at the mirror and do something meaningful and positive for the country. Write to your MP's and hold the planners to account and stop blaming each other for having too much or too little.

    Report on 27 September 2012  |  Love thisLove  1 love
  • davidinnotts
    Love rating 2
    davidinnotts said

    All good points, Tanni, But your comment about a third down says it all:

    "We are a very hands on nation but over the last century we have allowed the market forces of consumerism and marketing to dictate how we live our lives. We have gave powers to the nanny state who babysits and decides what is good for us! "

    You can't have it both ways. Either businesses can do what they like, or a government is strong enough to force them to benefit the people. One is 'raw capitalism', where the most powerful dominate; the other is called a 'nanny state'.

    I suppose your ideal is an unpaid class of politicians with the wisdom of Solomon and the power of a dictator, who nevertheless allow the people perfect freedom without responsibility and whose outcome is exactly the kind of life you want to lead (and everyone else agrees totally with YOU). But that will never happen.

    And meanwhile, no government nor any person with the power to affect your life will ever satisfy. It's the Brit's paradise - so much to whinge about at the bar!

    Report on 20 October 2012  |  Love thisLove  0 loves

Post a comment

Sign in or register to post a reply.

Our top deals

Provider & account name AER/Gross Interest paid Apply
now

Aldermore
1 Year Fixed Rate Account

1.85% /
1.85%
On Maturity Apply

Derbyshire BS
Derbyshire NetSaver Issue 11

1.70% /
1.70%
Yearly Apply

Nationwide BS
MySave Online Plus

1.70% /
1.69%
Monthly Apply
W3C  Thank you for using CGWEBLIV4