I’m not sure exactly. The scheme they have at the moment is about a 10% contribution. The benefit is 1/54th of pensionable earnings increased by CPI + 1.5% per year. For an agency nurse it is presumably whatever contributions based scheme that they go for.
I think because it is a career average pension, this may cause some of the concern about the lack of career progression.
Ah well, if he said it didnt cross his desk then, that’s that cleared up then.
It’s not like he’s going to lie about it, that would be totally out of character.
Rachel Reeves in Liverpool throwback.
Uncanny resemblance
Gary Nev isn’t anyone’s favourite on here, but he’s got a point in this interview…
I assume the pies on thr terraces are deadly at Arsenal then.
Seriously, it is a fair point i guess. But ultimately the new government are being judged to far higher standards than the previous one.
I half feel like trawling back through the previous 14 years of government favours just to get some perspective on it.
Not a great look either way though.
I don’t have an issue with the Starmer football thing.
He’s vacated a season ticket holder seat as a result of being moved to a VIP box, which if he was to try and use, he’d need security all around him.
Non story.
I think I’ve read somewhere else that it also requires empty seats around that section as well. Total nightmare for other fans.
So basically, anything that shows that you might not have got your facts straight is a lie?
I think the issue here is that you see things like foreign aid and overseas climate funding as giving money away, whereas it’s actually more like investment.
If we want to fight climate change there has to be help provided to poorer nations (who absolutely did not cause this problem) by richer nations (who absolutely did). Thsts enshrined in the Paris agreement.
If it’s a choice between making our legal and moral obligations under an international agreement to fight the biggest threat to humanity in history, or giving money to pensioners who don’t need it, I know what I’m going for.
“giving money to pensioners who don’t need it”, or giving money to countries that will do fuck all with it towards its intended use?
I know what I’m going for
TBH, a lot of overseas aid is a combination of soft power and promoting trade. There is a definite quid pro quo about it.
I might be misremembering what i read but i think that about a third of what @dane refers to is for direct aid with the rest going towards the IMF etc?
Possibly. I have a feeling that they count payments to UN organisations and the WHO as well.
Yes,. It’s probably UN and WHO that I was thinking of, more than the IMF.
Goodness this thread has become an absolute dumpster fire of late.
Article upon negative article about leaders like Angela Rayner following the correct protocols of declaring potential conflicts of interest instead of hiding them like we are used to from previous governments.
I guess the only positives is that there really aren’t skeletons in the closet, especially if the biggest argument is whether the PM is right to sit in a box seat at a football match.
I can understand using a friends house/apartment or tickets to events,games etc, but what i don’t understand is the idea of any of them,on either side,not buying their own clothes,glasses etc.
I think she is the new Barbara Castle. They’ll be making comments about her hair stylist next.
Tories doing it and trying to hide it is bad, Labour doing it but being transparent about it, not so bad.
But, bottom line is these “doners” don’t do this shit out of the goodness of their hearts, they always want something in return.
Whether hidden or transparent, something underhand is probably happening as a result.
It’s worth looking up donors and seeing what their interests are. There is a definite difference between mutual interests and quid pro quo.
True, but when you remove the cloak and daggers technique of hiding these things that the tories use, you are better and more quickly able to spot potential conflicts and issues rising a politicians motives.
Surely that would be preferential to unkown bribes and dodgy dealings?