Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Merle Haggard]

SERPS would be accrued if you paid employee NI above the lower earnings limit between 1978 and 2002 and weren’t contracted out. There was another scheme called S2P between 2002 and 2016 which did similar things before the current single tier state pension came in.
If you were contracted out, the additional contributions that would have gone into SERPS were instead paid into the occupational pension fund. There was then an obligation for the occupational pension to pay out a roughly equivalent sum as if you weren’t contracted out.

Thanks - I was contracted out, being in the railway pension fund.

The amount I've put in bold gives the impression that it should be included as an extra to my railway pension payment but it isn't - the pension paid is based on final salary and years in the fund, no extra for contracted out. In other words, I receive no extra pension payment for the SERPs 1978 - retirement period. Puzzling, I seriously doubt the efficiently run Railway Pension Fund would be wrong.

I think the 12p a week extra state pension may have been from the Graduated Pension Scheme which seems like the predecessor to SERPS. I recollect I paid a lot more than 12p a week into it, just re-inforces my opinion of the treatment of state pension contributions.

 

[edwin_m]

a recent poll showed a fair few wavering Tory voters would more likely vote for Reform UK than Labour

I still doubt it'll work. If the Tories market themselves as anything even close to a "radical far right party", they'll lose the votes of the centre.

I suspect the reason for that result is that the Tories have lost most of the centrists already, and they've fouled up so badly there's nothing they can do to get them back before the next election.

 

[nw1]

I suspect the reason for that result is that the Tories have lost most of the centrists already, and they've fouled up so badly there's nothing they can do to get them back before the next election.

Even Rishi's chum Elon?

 

[Gloster]

My feeling is that at least an element of their election strategy, albeit a desperate one, is to try and frighten at least two groups who might otherwise not really be bothered to vote into the polling stations. All those petrolheads who fill local newspaper websites‘ comment sections with complaints about roadworks that might delay their journey, if they were to use that road (which they haven’t since 2014), will be frightened into believing that Labour will stop them using their 4X4s to go to the pub. All the complacent smuggers (smug b…..s) who would normally vote Conservative, but have been put off by the party’s recent antics, will be frightened into the polling booths by claims that Labour will give their house to foreigners and ban them from seeing family at Christmas.

 

[JamesT]

Thanks - I was contracted out, being in the railway pension fund.

The amount I've put in bold gives the impression that it should be included as an extra to my railway pension payment but it isn't - the pension paid is based on final salary and years in the fund, no extra for contracted out. In other words, I receive no extra pension payment for the SERPs 1978 - retirement period. Puzzling, I seriously doubt the efficiently run Railway Pension Fund would be wrong.

I think the 12p a week extra state pension may have been from the Graduated Pension Scheme which seems like the predecessor to SERPS. I recollect I paid a lot more than 12p a week into it, just re-inforces my opinion of the treatment of state pension contributions.

https://member.railwayspensions.co.uk/pension-essentials/state-pension links to https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-cope-amount-when-you-used-the-online-service

In most instances your workplace or personal pension(s) will include an amount that is equivalent to the estimated COPE amount shown in your statement. This is not normally identified specifically but is paid by your pension scheme(s) as part of your total private pension.

and

Schemes that pay an amount of pension based on your earnings (often called defined benefit, final salary or career-average salary schemes) are required to provide benefits to replace the State Pension you were opted out of, in return for allowing members and employers to pay lower NI. The private pension you built up during the years 1978 to 1997 as a result of being contracted out is called your Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP).

From a quick search it looks like the Railway Pension Scheme is/was a 1/60th scheme? (ie you get 1/60th of your salary multiplied by the number of years). This level of benefits would have been funded by the additional contributions that went into that fund rather than NI payments towards SERPS.
In an alternative world where you weren’t contracted out, the railway pension might have been something lesser (eg 1/70th or 1/80th), but you would be receiving SERPS with your state pension.

 

[nw1]

Moved this from the Gaza thread as it's more appropriate here as it relates primarily to criticism of this government rather than any of the actors in the Gaza conflict.

Braveman has labelled Palestine protests as "hate marches" (https://www.itv.com/news/2023-10-30...ting-amid-concerns-of-rising-uk-terror-threat) and I see the Express today is doing the same.

Home Secretary Suella Braverman has labelled the huge pro-Palestinian rallies across the UK as "hate marches" in comments likely to anger many of the more than 100,000 people who have attended.

IMV, after a long run of divisive and (IMO) extreme pronouncements, Braverman has now crossed the line into the far right. More than any senior politician since Enoch Powell, it is she who constantly promotes hate. Hate against the "woke", hate against immigrants and now, supposedly, hate against participants in the Palestine marches.

The Gaza situation has, more than ever, shown the Sunak government up for what it really is. By far the most authoritarian-right government of my lifetime, and yes, I include both Thatcher and Johnson in that.

 

[oldman]

I also have a railway pension so 'contracted out' but my state pension (old scheme) is little more than £156.20 per week. Another element I receive (might be SERPs, not sure) is about 12p a week. Perhaps that was from the G.P.S. contributions, though.

I was in the university pension scheme so also contracted out of SERPS. The scheme had to guarantee at least as much as I would have got from SERPS - the Guaranteed Minimum Payment. The GMP is just part of your work pension, but it has to be index-linked and the state pays some of the index-linking as an add-on to the basic pension. So this year, with high inflation, my total state pension went up by more than inflation, and my work pension by correspondingly less. Over the years this has become quite a large amount, but its just money I would otherwise have got from my work pension.

You should get an annual letter from DWP telling you how your payment is made up. I get the SERPS-GMP inflation adjustment, graduated pension from when I was not contracted out, and a payment of £1 from post-1997 which I don't understand. They are all index-linked. It's different for post-2016 retirees on the new state pension.

(In today's money I was on something like a train-driver's salary, so plump cat rather than fat cat!)

 

[nw1]

Theres a delicious irony though that two Anglo-Asians are now seen as the facilitator of anti migration protests.

Well, the government is pretty hostile towards immigration, isn't it? And not just from the EU or the Arab world, either. Another regular contributor, on another thread, spoke of increased difficulty (as in, unaffordable fees) for even US immigrants to settle here compared to some years ago - and that's one of the countries we are supposedly "friends" with.

So if you want to criticise anyone for being hypocritical, criticise the likes of Braverman whose parents benefited from immigration but now wants to close the doors behind them.

 

[uglymonkey]

And we need immigrants to come and pay tax, to keep us going. So it doesn't make sense.

 

[nw1]

And we need immigrants to come and pay tax, to keep us going. So it doesn't make sense.

Quite, also the demographic issues (a late-boomer and Generation X 'bulge') were covered above so anti-immigrationism is counter-productive.

 

[Gloster]

Well, the government is pretty hostile towards immigration, isn't it? And not just from the EU or the Arab world, either. Another regular contributor, on another thread, spoke of increased difficulty (as in, unaffordable fees) for even US immigrants to settle here compared to some years ago - and that's one of the countries we are supposedly "friends" with.

Unless, of course, you are a rich Russian oligarch who wants to show his patriotic fervour for Britain by giving money to the Conservative Party (other parties are not available), buying a newspaper, employing expensive lawyers and accountants, etc. It is all quite above board.

 

[Busaholic]

Unless, of course, you are a rich Russian oligarch who wants to show his patriotic fervour for Britain by giving money to the Conservative Party (other parties are not available), buying a newspaper, employing expensive lawyers and accountants, etc. It is all quite above board.

Or buying Chelsea Football Club, of course.

 

[317 forever]

I must admit to being surprised, but pleased, that both have been lost by the Tories, and both by reasonably clear margins. It really is a case of ’Tories less popular than chlamydia’ and, in any normal era, would see them calling an election because they knew that continuing to hang on would cause long-term damage to the party’s remaining shreds of credibility. But I can’t see them doing that as the current lot are only in it for their personal short-term interests. Go on, prove me wrong…

A further thought: it’s the abstentions what won it.

Not just abstentions but votes for Reform.

Had all the votes for Reform gone to the Tories, this would have saved them both seats.

 

[takno]

Not just abstentions but votes for Reform.

Had all the votes for Reform gone to the Tories, this would have saved them both seats.

That's possibly true, but arguably irrelevant. Firstly I don't think it's fair to assume that the natural home for reform voters is the Tories, and secondly being able to win over the right wing reform voters without alienating more moderate Tories may well be impossible.

 

[317 forever]

Peter Bone now suspended for six weeks so a by-election in Wellingborough is on the cards. He had 62.2% of the vote in 2019, Labour second with 26.5%, 18,540 majority.

As Wellingborough was won by Labour during their landslide elections, as were Selby and Tamworth, it could still be won by Labour at least at a by-election.

 

[JamesT]

That's possibly true, but arguably irrelevant. Firstly I don't think it's fair to assume that the natural home for reform voters is the Tories, and secondly being able to win over the right wing reform voters without alienating more moderate Tories may well be impossible.

Conservatives unlikely to win over Reform UK supporters at next election | YouGov

Most planning to vote for Reform UK wouldn’t switch to Conservatives even if their first choice party doesn’t stand in their constituency

yougov.co.uk

Although the Tories are the biggest single party that Reform voters would go for, there does seem to be a hefty chunk of them being fed up with the mainstream parties.

 

[317 forever]

But the electorate still has Truss issues with the party.

If the electorate still has Truss issues with the Tories, it is time for the Tories to Lettuce decide who should now be the government.

 

[Purple Train]

If the electorate still has Truss issues with the Tories, it is time for the Tories to Lettuce decide who should now be the government.

To me the problems started with the Vote Leaf campaign, but of course that was the tip of the Iceberg.

 

[bspahh]

To me the problems started with the Vote Leaf campaign, but of course that was the tip of the Iceberg.

and not cos of romaine

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So if you want to criticise anyone for being hypocritical, criticise the likes of Braverman whose parents benefited from immigration but now wants to close the doors behind them.

I'm pretty sure Suella Braverman is against illegal immigration - not legal immigration. So I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Were her parents illegal immigrants? Or did they come to the UK at a time when immigration was at unsustainably high levels and there was therefore a good argument for trying to reduce it - which appears to be what Braverman believes?

Besides, last time I checked, Suella Braverman was born in Wembley: It's her parents who migrated to the UK. Are you working to some new ethical standard by which people are responsible for what their parents did before they were born, and are therefore hypocritical if they don't fully support people doing whatever their parents/ancestors did? Am I a hypocrite because I'm against smoking despite that my parents used to smoke, and my grandfather smoked for his entire life?

It's quite legitimate to disagree with Suella Braverman, as you do. But I don't see any rational grounds for accusing her of hypocrisy on account of her desire to keep immigration down to reasonable levels.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm pretty sure Suella Braverman is against illegal immigration - not legal immigration.

There are periodically Tory promises to keep total net immigration down to a certain figure, and news of how it is going way over that figure. So it's fair to say Braverman has a problem with legal immigration too.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are periodically Tory promises to keep total net immigration down to a certain figure, and news of how it is going way over that figure. So it's fair to say Braverman has a problem with legal immigration too.

That would be a problem if incompetence (or - depending on your point of view, of trying to achieve the impossible, or of over-promising and not delivering), not a problem of hypocrisy.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect the reason for that result is that the Tories have lost most of the centrists already, and they've fouled up so badly there's nothing they can do to get them back before the next election.

Actually I thought of a way. Going by the Covid enquiry, if Sunak gave viruses the vote, they would overwhelmingly be voting Tory.

If the electorate still has Truss issues with the Tories, it is time for the Tories to Lettuce decide who should now be the government.

Thinking of Therese Coffey, that would really be a turnip for the books.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Nov 2023 ==

That would be a problem if incompetence (or - depending on your point of view, of trying to achieve the impossible, or of over-promising and not delivering), not a problem of hypocrisy.

Clearly she has a problem with legal immigration, and as that was how her parents got to be here, an accusation of hypocrisy is reasonable.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Clearly she has a problem with legal immigration, and as that was how her parents got to be here, an accusation of hypocrisy is reasonable.

No, it isn't. Suella Braverman is very clearly against unsustainable levels of immigration and equally clearly believes that current UK immigration levels are unsustainable - but there's no reason to believe that she is against all immigration. That's simply an evidence-free assertion that many people on the left seem to like putting out as if it were true. And it's perfectly possible to believe that immigration was a good thing in the circumstances that the UK was in during the 1950s and 1960s but that the very different circumstances that the UK finds itself in today requires a reduction in immigration. That belief would not make you a hypocrite.

Besides, you haven't addressed the point that Braverman cannot be held responsible for what her parents did before she was born. It makes no sense to label someone a hypocrite on account of things that their parents did that they had no control over.

 

[edwin_m]

No, it isn't. Suella Braverman is very clearly against unsustainable levels of immigration and equally clearly believes that current UK immigration levels are unsustainable - but there's no reason to believe that she is against all immigration. That's simply an evidence-free assertion that many people on the left seem to like putting out as if it were true. And it's perfectly possible to believe that immigration was a good thing in the circumstances that the UK was in during the 1950s and 1960s but that the very different circumstances that the UK finds itself in today requires a reduction in immigration. That belief would not make you a hypocrite.

Besides, you haven't addressed the point that Braverman cannot be held responsible for what her parents did before she was born. It makes no sense to label someone a hypocrite on account of things that their parents did that they had no control over.

If it's unsustainable (in her view) then she has a problem with legal immigration.

If she removes something that she herself indirectly benefitted from, which others in a similar situation in the future won't be able to benefit from, then that justifies a charge of hypocrisy.

 

[Busaholic]

Clearly she has a problem with legal immigration, and as that was how her parents got to be here, an accusation of hypocrisy is reasonable.

Those of us of a certain age remember the film 'I'm All Right Jack' starring Peter Sellers and the concomitant saying ''I'm all right Jack, pull the ladder up'' which exemplifies Braverman's insouciance. If she was to study the history of those politicians who try to stir up baser instincts in others, she may come to realise that some end up on the receiving end of brutish behaviour in the long term from those same people for their perceived 'deficiencies'. It could be said that her racial inheritance might not be an advantage to her in those circumstances. ''What goes around comes around.''

In any case, if you frame immigration laws and protocols in a certain way, the effect is that many categories of people have no access to legal migration and this applies to genuine refugees as well as others.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If it's unsustainable (in her view) then she has a problem with legal immigration.

Not at all. If you believe that the level is unsustainable, that means you would want to reduce it. It does NOT mean you would want to stop it.

If she removes something that she herself indirectly benefitted from, which others in a similar situation in the future won't be able to benefit from, then that justifies a charge of hypocrisy.

Really? That makes for a very wide definition of hypocrisy. Have you thought through the implications of your statement? Consider for example that we have all indirectly benefitted from mass burning of fossil fuels in the past, since burning fossil fuels has created the industrial revolution and the infrastructure that supports modern lifestyles. But I'm guessing you would agree with me that we need to stop mass burning fossil fuels, and remove the legal ability for people to continue to do so, as soon as practical. Does that make you and I hypocrites? Your logic says that it does.

Also consider that your statement means that you could have two people who have exactly the same views and who have done exactly the same things through their lives, but you could label one of them a hypocrite and the other not a hypocrite purely on account of the circumstances that the ancestors of one of them found themselves in having indirectly benefitted that person.

And finally consider that your statement means that in some regards you would be demanding higher standards of 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants than of people whose parents/grandparents/etc. were British. That's potentially racist (and you already see that in the way that you are labelling Braverman a hypocrite where you presumably wouldn't so label a white caucasian of British descent and identical views, who had never benefitted from immigration)

 

[brad465]

I think it's safe to say Dorries is very much intent on revenge against the party:

Tory Party covered up for 'serial rapist' MP, top official claims

EXCLUSIVE: Jake Berry (pictured) sent a bombshell letter to police in which he revealed that a number of allegations about the MP had been made known - but limited action had been taken.

www.dailymail.co.uk

A Tory Party chairman exposed an alleged cover-up of serial 'rapes' committed by an MP by reporting his Government colleagues to detectives, The Mail on Sunday can reveal.

Jake Berry sent a bombshell letter to police in which he revealed that a number of allegations about the MP had been made known to the party – but only limited action had been taken.

Mr Berry uncovered the scandal when he discovered the party had paid for one of the alleged victims to receive treatment at a private hospital.

Neither the alleged perpetrator nor the women said to be involved can be identified for legal reasons and the MP is referred to here as X.

Devastatingly, Mr Berry, who wrote the letter jointly with former Chief Whip Wendy Morton, another MP and a Downing Street official, claimed that the failure of the Tory Party to act had allowed the MP to continue offending after the alarm had been raised.

He wrote in his letter to police that as the party's inquiries continued, it was 'ascertained there may be five victims of X who have been subject to a range of offences including multiple rapes'.

He wrote: 'We are aware that this matter has been ongoing for over two years. We also believe there are up to five victims of X and that the failure of others to act has enabled X to continue to offend and to victimise women.'

Mr Berry, who wrote the letter shortly after he left the chairman's job last year when Liz Truss's Government collapsed, concluded: 'This is not something we are prepared to see continue and collectively we have therefore raised the issue with both you and the Speaker's Office in the House of Commons seeking an immediate police investigation.'

The letter, obtained exclusively by The Mail on Sunday, will throw a harsh spotlight on the way the Conservative Party handles allegations of serious sexual assault.

The episode is alluded to in an explosive book by former Cabinet Minister Nadine Dorries, which is being serialised in the MoS and the Daily Mail.

Other astonishing disclosures from today's extracts include a number of sexual revelations, which Ms Dorries says are frequently used by political enemies as part of blackmail campaigns.

Among her findings are that:

• An MP had sex with a prostitute on a billiard table watched by four other cheering MPs;
• Another MP stored a laptop containing indecent images of children on behalf of a relative;
• The Tory Whips' office is claimed to be in possession of a video of a Minister engaged in an adulterous sexual act;
• The security camera which caught former Health Secretary Matt Hancock kissing an aide had allegedly been tampered with by his political enemies in order to catch him in the act;
• Colleagues described Boris Johnson's former chief of staff Dominic Cummings as a 'narcissist' and a 'psychopath' who offered to deliver Mr Johnson's victory speech in place of him after the 2019 Election win. Mr Cummings told The Mail on Sunday – with presumed sarcasm – that the claims about him were 'all true... you cannot negotiate, you can only surrender to the Movement';
• Michael Gove reputedly 'pleaded' with David Cameron to be allowed to keep Mr Cummings as his adviser when he was Education Secretary, to which a source close to Mr Gove responded last night: 'Nadine is a very talented bestselling fiction writer';
• Sonia Khan, a former adviser to then Chancellor Sajid Javid, was forced to call Scotland Yard 'a number of times' after she was 'stalked' and 'filmed' after launching legal action against the Treasury over her sacking, sources claimed.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it's safe to say Dorries is very much intent on revenge against the party:

Tory Party covered up for 'serial rapist' MP, top official claims

EXCLUSIVE: Jake Berry (pictured) sent a bombshell letter to police in which he revealed that a number of allegations about the MP had been made known - but limited action had been taken.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Oh Blimey! I guess we can take what Nadine Dorries writes with a pinch of salt unless some independent confirmation comes up, since she's clearly got a huge chip on her shoulder. But the letter by Jake Berry sounds like it is reliable, and the implications of it are utterly awful, both in terms of what's happened to the alleged victims and for what they imply about the culture within parts of the Tory party at Westminster.

 

[birchesgreen]

Braverman is against homeless people now, its a lifestyle choice after all so she wants to stop them using tents to try and avoid freezing to death.

Still we won't be able to criticise whatever she does soon unless we want to be branded an extremist.

Revealed: plan to brand anyone ‘undermining’ UK as extremist

Leaked documents spark furious backlash from groups who fear freedom of expression could be suppressed

www.theguardian.com

Government officials have drawn up deeply controversial proposals to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who “undermines” the country’s institutions and its values, according to documents seen by the Observer.

The new definition, prepared by civil servants working for cabinet minister Michael Gove, is fiercely opposed by a cohort of officials who fear legitimate groups and individuals will be branded extremists.

The proposals have provoked a furious response from civil rights groups with some warning it risks “criminalising dissent”, and would significantly suppress freedom of expression.

One Whitehall official said: “The concern is that this is a crackdown on freedom of speech. The definition is too broad and will capture legitimate organisations and individuals.”