Lee Anderson has joined the Reform UK political party!

Years ago we had ‘Family Allowance’. Pensions out to be viewed the same way?

I just wish the State would do less but manage to do what it does do better.

Callistemon21

... why did you shred the reply to your letter?

Probably not immediately but it was a long time ago. And I thought it was like

😁😁

I get it!

I hope this discussion of the terminology for the state pension doesn't deflect from the point I was making, for the benefit of our Reform voters, that we are already living in a small state and making it any smaller isn't going to be at all pleasant.

Perhaps they would like to explain how making it smaller would be a Good Thing'?

Great post Dickens.
I loved singing Land of hope and Glory with mum when we watched last night of the proms. I’m not longing for empire or some mystical all powerful. All benevolent fantasy country. It would be good though, to feel a sense of pride that we had a govt investing in public services and looking at how Europe supports people fleeing famines and wars in our former colonies

Great post Dickens. It certainly isn't the fault of immigrants/ illegals/scroungers or what ever ghastly word is used.

Its a very handy way to deflect from the sad state of things. There is no going back to Land of Hope and Glory.

What I cannot for the life of me comprehend is the hatred.

Dickens

Callistemon2

In fact, I think it's been known as a benefit since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.

Gosh, I didn't know that!

I guess, strictly speaking, it is a benefit. But not one that the general public usually associates with 'being-on-benefits'.

... why did you shred the reply to your letter?

That's the issue. "Being on benefits" has such a stigma attached that people don't want to be associated with "people like that".

In 2016, there was petition to stop labelling the state pension as a benefit. It had enough signatures to require a government response. This was given on 4 March 2016:

The State Pension is described in legislation as a “benefit” in order to root it within the existing social security framework as a statutory scheme paid out of monies in the National Insurance Fund.

Some people have a negative association with the word ‘benefit’ as synonymous with the means test; however this legal description provides consistency with other contributory benefits. 

It is, of course, also consistent with private pensions where traditional pension schemes which are earnings linked such as final salary schemes, known as ‘Defined Benefit’ schemes. The pension paid out by these schemes is defined as a ‘benefit’.

State Pension entitlement is based on having paid into the National Insurance scheme for a required number of years. However, use of the word “benefit” for retirement pension (latterly known as State Pension) has always been classified in law from the time of the 1946 National Insurance Act, which applied from the inception of the National Insurance scheme. No offence is intended by the use of this term.

Furthermore, the term “contributory benefit”, forms the legislative framework of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Section 20 of that Act is entitled “Descriptions of contributory benefits”. Contributory benefits under Part II of that Act are listed, and the sixth is retirement pensions.

In addition, the introduction of the new State Pension from 6 April 2016 is also classified as a “benefit” under Section 1(1) of the Pensions Act 2014.

This word is also used to describe the advantages (benefits) provided through private pension arrangements.

Department for Work and Pensions

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121267

... why did you shred the reply to your letter?

Probably not immediately but it was a long time ago. And I thought it was like

Callistemon2

In fact, I think it's been known as a benefit since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.

Gosh, I didn't know that!

I guess, strictly speaking, it is a benefit. But not one that the general public usually associates with 'being-on-benefits'.

... why did you shred the reply to your letter?

".. I wonder if that is the country he wants "back"? Or if, having defected from Labour and joined the ranks of the small-state, free-marketeers, he wants us to believe that Muslims, immigrants, and the EU, have stolen our way-of-life and if only we could get rid of the pesky threesome - we'd get it back again."

Great post Dickens the above sums up what I hate about populist politics, see a problem and instead of finding a solution, find a scapegoat and then tell the voters you are only saying what everyone is thinking. Whatever happened to appealing to the best in us instead of the very worst?

growstuff

Callistemon21

State pension is now regarded as a benefit

It's been a benefit for a long time. I've been retired for a number of years and I wrote to the then Pensions Secretary to complain about it being called a benefit.
Nothing changed!

In fact, I think it's been known as a benefit since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.

Shhhh! Don't say that! People will get all outraged - they won't be able to moan about others on benefits .

PS. You're right.

😁

I did get a letter back at the time but I shredded it

Callistemon21

^State pension is now regarded as a benefit^

It's been a benefit for a long time. I've been retired for a number of years and I wrote to the then Pensions Secretary to complain about it being called a benefit.
Nothing changed!

In fact, I think it's been known as a benefit since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.

Shhhh! Don't say that! People will get all outraged - they won't be able to moan about others on benefits .

PS. You're right.

State pension is now regarded as a benefit

It's been a benefit for a long time. I've been retired for a number of years and I wrote to the then Pensions Secretary to complain about it being called a benefit.
Nothing changed!

In fact, I think it's been known as a benefit since the start of the National Insurance Scheme.

Great post, Dickens.

I hope those who favour the "small-state" ideology know what it might mean for them..

They really should know because all the things you describe in your first paragraph are the direct result of the tory belief in the 'small state' and their moves to implement, it from Thatcher onwards.

What is more, their attempts to throw everything open to 'the market' by privatising many former public service sectors have failed dismally in many cases when you consider the dire state of sectors such as water, transport, mail, energy and social care, where the imperative to make sufficient profit to satisfy shareholders has overridden the necessity to provide a safe and affordable universal service.

M0nica

Urnstongran What is the country Lee Anderson wants back? How does his version of what this country was accord with other people's memory of what this country was.

The country of the 1980s, when employment soared, most of industry shut down and the seeds of all the ills that afflict us now were sewn?

Or perhaps the early years of this century when benefits checks wer so strict and inaccurate that some vulnerable people starved to death.

Anyone can mouth these meaningless slogans, but is what precisely they mean that matters and Lee Anderson, like most politicians is all meaningless slogans and personal preening and probably has no idea what he means by this slogan

...What is the country Lee Anderson wants back? How does his version of what this country was accord with other people's memory of what this country was.

This!

Do you think he means the country where we could, with not too much difficulty, get an appointment with a doctor; be fairly sure our planned surgery would not have to be delayed; where we did not hear too many alarming reports of people waiting multiple hours for an ambulance to arrive (and sometimes dying because it took too long); where people - though maybe conservative with their energy use - could still afford to switch on their heating; where the sick and disabled were not desperately trying to avail themselves of the ever-dwindling services; when social services and care had not become a political golf-ball, whacked into the long-grass;, when renting a home did not consume more than half your income, and home-ownership become a distant and maybe impossible dream; when your job paid you enough to live on - when, in fact, you could secure a permanent job and not have to gig around for zero hour contracts; when reporting a crime to the police did not result in simply being given a 'number' for it; when you could drive to and fro along our roads without having to keep one eye on them in order to avoid the ever-increasing pot-holes..

... I wonder if that is the country he wants "back"? Or if, having defected from Labour and joined the ranks of the small-state, free-marketeers, he wants us to believe that Muslims, immigrants, and the EU, have stolen our way-of-life and if only we could get rid of the pesky threesome - we'd get it back again.

However, having now defected again after losing the whip, I hope he's found his forever-home.

...Or perhaps the early years of this century when benefits checks wer so strict and inaccurate that some vulnerable people starved to death.

Oh, that's because they didn't have the benefit of Mr Anderson's 30p-per-meal know-how.

On a serious note - I hope those who favour the "small-state" ideology know what it might mean for them.. I think URMS is a 'believer'. If they assume it's simply those 'on-benefits' who are going to be affected, it's a mistake. Anyone who isn't fairly comfortable and financially independent is going to be targeted. State pension is now regarded as a benefit and as it consumes the largest portion of welfare spending, the 'small-state' gurus will, if regaining power, be looking at ways to reduce the spend, I bet!

Greta

Mr Anderson is no longer a young man and he has now fallen into the trap of believing that things were so much better in the past.
I was listening to an interesting discussion about this phenomenon which seems to be universal. The past starts to appear a much more attractive place as we age.

He's not that old!

He's only 57 and there are people decades older than him who don't think like him.

nanna8

A lot of Aborigines voted no and went on the tv for their reasons. It is very convenient for people to forget that though, unfortunately. The couple of Aborigine friends I have were very firm ‘no’s’. I think you have to live here to understand what is happening, or at least, like Call. have strong ties.
Sorry I am a bit off just now, just received news of a death in the family and feeling sad and weepy.

nanna8 I'm sorry you've had sad news

Greta

I'm sure you have a good point there, growstuff. I probably shouldn't comment since I did not live my "good old days" in this country.

You have as much right to comment as anybody else.

I'm sure you have a good point there, growstuff. I probably shouldn't comment since I did not live my "good old days" in this country.

nanna8

A lot of Aborigines voted no and went on the tv for their reasons. It is very convenient for people to forget that though, unfortunately. The couple of Aborigine friends I have were very firm ‘no’s’. I think you have to live here to understand what is happening, or at least, like Call. have strong ties.
Sorry I am a bit off just now, just received news of a death in the family and feeling sad and weepy.

So sorry for your sad news

Greta He's quite a bit younger than I am. I don't think it's universal. I can think of a few good things like being able to get an NHS dentist, but I can think of many things I don't want to return.

Mr Anderson is no longer a young man and he has now fallen into the trap of believing that things were so much better in the past.
I was listening to an interesting discussion about this phenomenon which seems to be universal. The past starts to appear a much more attractive place as we age.

But Monica by not explaining what he means, people can dream up their own version of the "good old days". I'm sure if we all thought about it, we could all think of something which was better 50 years ago and imagine that's what he means (and ignore all the rest).

Urnstongran What is the country Lee Anderson wants back? How does his version of what this country was accord with other people's memory of what this country was.

The country of the 1980s, when employment soared, most of industry shut down and the seeds of all the ills that afflict us now were sewn?

Or perhaps the early years of this century when benefits checks wer so strict and inaccurate that some vulnerable people starved to death.

Anyone can mouth these meaningless slogans, but is what precisely they mean that matters and Lee Anderson, like most politicians is all meaningless slogans and personal preening and probably has no idea what he means by this slogan