Only 28% of voters want no deal

hkloss1:
I don’t understand , people, why do you still keep reading and commenting my posts.
If you hate so much what I post , it’s clearly not for, so whenever you see me posting anything about brexit, just don’t read.
What part of that do you struggle to understand?
It’s clearly not for you, so just move along, and go, read and comment posts that you enjoy reading and commenting.
Life’s too short to be stressing so much about someone’s posts.
Just imagine how many other, more interesting for you, and more enjoyable posts you could have read and commented on, instead of wasting your time and efforts on what I post.

I don’t need to read fully your posts, two lines is usually enough to convince me that I ain’t buying what you’re selling. I do admire your persistence however, you bring to mind a missionary quoting The Book of John whilst he’s simmering nicely in the cannibals stewing pot.

Carryfast:

Winseer:
If Capitalism worked properly, we’d all be working, because we’d starve if we didn’t.

If the Deep State worked properly - they’d be immortal already, and none of us would ever darken the doors of a Science Lab to learn “how to” ourselves.

It seems that your ideas on the definition of Capitalism are based on Thatcherite principles.Be careful what you wish for.

As for the Deep State it’s actually the same thing as ( your idea of ) Capitalism and Communism when both are taken to their logical conclusion.IE maximum exploitation of an under class,that has no value if/when it ceases to be useful to the establishment for whatever reason.

And youre in favour of leaving a market populated by relatively (relative to the world) well off countries to become "free marketeers" so we will be in competition not with East Europeans but with East Asian and Chinese workers? If you think we have a depressed labour market now, wait until we are competing not with Hungarians and Poles, but with Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indians. Brexit will not raise standards for workers. Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Gove, Johnson, Farage etc are not Trades Union officers with a posh voice! They stand to gain from depressing the UK labour market. Look at their (the only?) economist who favours leave, Patrick Minford. Read his report that says the UK could do well if we leave....at the cost of agriculture and manufacturing industry. This article will show a bit of his thinking. [forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... ongestion/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/01/28/brexit-to-destroy-u-k-car-manufacturing-lead-to-cheaper-imported-cars-increase-traffic-congestion/) The country will be better off in a post Brexit free trade world, he says, in spite of "In 2012, [Professor Minford] told MPs on Westminster’s foreign affairs committee that car manufacturers in the UK would have to be wound down if Britain left the EU. In the run-up to the referendum in 2016 he also said Brexit would eliminate manufacturing.” "Its one of those things", he said…
I mean, here we have a Pro Brexit economist:
“In fact, the leading Brexiter Jacob Rees Mogg has said Minford “deserves to be listened to because of his remarkable track record” and the two have appeared together at many Brexit events.”
forbes.com/sites/carltonrei … e7f8143efb
Some people will benefit from Brexit, maybe. But cheap food imports will destroy our farming industry. Manufacturing will shrink.
So with less goods to move and less jobs where will wages go for US as drivers? It sure as **** wont be a rise!

“Be careful what you wish for” indeed…

Franglais:

Carryfast:

Winseer:
If Capitalism worked properly, we’d all be working, because we’d starve if we didn’t.

If the Deep State worked properly - they’d be immortal already, and none of us would ever darken the doors of a Science Lab to learn “how to” ourselves.

It seems that your ideas on the definition of Capitalism are based on Thatcherite principles.Be careful what you wish for.

As for the Deep State it’s actually the same thing as ( your idea of ) Capitalism and Communism when both are taken to their logical conclusion.IE maximum exploitation of an under class,that has no value if/when it ceases to be useful to the establishment for whatever reason.

And youre in favour of leaving a market populated by relatively (relative to the world) well off countries to become "free marketeers" so we will be in competition not with East Europeans but with East Asian and Chinese workers? If you think we have a depressed labour market now, wait until we are competing not with Hungarians and Poles, but with Vietnamese, Chinese, and Indians. Brexit will not raise standards for workers. Rees-Mogg, Redwood, Gove, Johnson, Farage etc are not Trades Union officers with a posh voice! They stand to gain from depressing the UK labour market. Look at their (the only?) economist who favours leave, Patrick Minford. Read his report that says the UK could do well if we leave....at the cost of agriculture and manufacturing industry. This article will show a bit of his thinking. [forbes.com/sites/carltonrei ... ongestion/](https://www.forbes.com/sites/carltonreid/2019/01/28/brexit-to-destroy-u-k-car-manufacturing-lead-to-cheaper-imported-cars-increase-traffic-congestion/) The country will be better off in a post Brexit free trade world, he says, in spite of "In 2012, [Professor Minford] told MPs on Westminster’s foreign affairs committee that car manufacturers in the UK would have to be wound down if Britain left the EU. In the run-up to the referendum in 2016 he also said Brexit would eliminate manufacturing.” "Its one of those things", he said…
I mean, here we have a Pro Brexit economist:
“In fact, the leading Brexiter Jacob Rees Mogg has said Minford “deserves to be listened to because of his remarkable track record” and the two have appeared together at many Brexit events.”
forbes.com/sites/carltonrei … e7f8143efb
Some people will benefit from Brexit, maybe. But cheap food imports will destroy our farming industry. Manufacturing will shrink.
So with less goods to move and less jobs where will wages go for US as drivers? It sure as **** wont be a rise!

“Be careful what you wish for” indeed…

No I’m in favour of leaving a Federal dictatorship like all the previous ones which have gone before in Europe from the savagery of the Roman Empire to the JNA rampaging across Slovenia.

Strange how you conveniently apply double standards regarding EU race to the bottom free markets,with the exception of keeping the Germans happy.On that note as I remember it we had more jobs,more industry,higher wages in real terms and far more trade union rights and a more civilised social security system in 1972 than we’ve ever had since joining the EU.Unsurprisingly without a massive trade deficit and net contribution to pay for.While I wouldn’t call our previous trading and free movement policy with Oz and NZ an exploitative one.Unlike our EU relationship with East Euro.

No surprise that you’d have people like Thatcher and Blair,among other exploitative,self appointed,elites all with their snouts in the trough,on your side in that regard.

There are a lot of people in risk-averse Britain that believe if “They don’t ever gamble, then they cannot ever lose”.

This is rubbish of course, as if YOU don’t gamble, then it doesn’t stop someone else gambling your stuff for you, and losing on your behalf, or winning their own profits and commissions whilst things go OK. This is the nature of the Derivatives world.

More younger people are now encouraged to Vote, and yet less young people are encouraged to Gamble. I’m not talking about donking away one’s wages on some FOBT somewhere, but the kind of gambling one does when making “life changing decisions” such as “Buying a Property” or “Which kind of car to get” or even “When and where to go for my holidays”.

If you are not a person used to taking risks, then when you go out and vote for example, you DON’T expect for all your efforts to then LOSE.

There seems to be a serious psychological problem with Remainers, Liberals, Lefties, and even Middle-Class Conservatives where they just do NOT accept having lost an argument ANY issues.

Imagine the scenes if among actual gamblers at a Race Meeting where a fancied horse gets beaten by a short head by a rank outsider… Such an outcome is described as “An Upset”.

BUT… Bookmakers prompty pay out on the winner, and no matter how much the beaten favorite backers grumble - they never EVER get their money back.

GAMBLERS then - have their moan, and then shut up, and think of the future ahead, that doesn’t involve the “yesterday’s news” of having been robbed on yesterday’s outcome.

That’s what WE need to know do as a public in the Post-Referendum country we live in:
Let the result stand, and let it be weighed in - so the winners can be paid out, and the losers - accept we are are not going backwards to pick up their lost cause.

The reason that Brexiteer sentiment - is still as strong as ever, is simple: We have not been paid off yet!

Above all things, we WANT what we voted for. Even if 100 people voted for 100 different kinds of Brexit, the ONE thing that all 100 of them, and any Remainers could all benefit from - is an END to these prententions over Brexit.

The day we stop paying the EU our cash, and are no longer subservient to EU courts - is the day we have Left the EU.

Anything else, like trading arrangements, laws already on our statute books, and cross-channel company cooperation - can wind down in their own time later.

The £350m on the side of the bus, wasn’t a lie, but just inaccurate. The actual amount we send the EU, even after the rebate is deducted - is way beyond this three years on, after Brexit with an EU struggling to meet it’s budget whip-round as it is. It was wrong of people like Boris Johnson to suggest that ALL the money we used to send the EU - would and could go to the NHS. That’s why we have different political parties to vote for: Given the same windfall cash, the parties would doubtless ALL spend the “Brexit Dividend” - differently. I doubt if ANY political party would use all that cash just for the NHS, and none of the other worth causes that such cash could be spent on, such as New Schools, Better Social Care, or even Higher Benefits.

Isn’t it time to stop pulling the Tories back from this “Cliff Edge” spoken off, and give them a hearty PUSH instead?

…We can always vote for another party LATER, after all - once Brexit is complete, and all that money lies in our coffers, waiting to be spent differently by a changed government moving into Downing Street.

Blair’s Labour - benefited from a strong balance sheet when taking over in 1997. Cameron’s Conservatives however - got the exact opposite.

It is time we stopped blaming Tories for “Austerity”, Labour for “Squeezing the middle earners”, the Libdems for “Banging the Remain drum”, and even Brexit Party for “Being a Right-Wing Wish List” for too many that would benefit from any or all policies of ALL four of those parties I’ve mentioned.

More money = More of everything people want, regargless of politics. I don’t give a ■■■■ about Immigration, but voted Leave to get our nation’s hands on that MONEY.

I’d LOVE to see better public services AND lower taxes to boot - wouldn’t we all? It is not worth wishing ill upon your neighbor, just to put across a conflicting political view.

I’d even put up with another Labour government IF the Brexit Money was secured in UK coffers. We can worry about how to “spend it differently” Later, I’ll say it again.

STOP Political Correctness..jpg

Seeing how the Brussels Bully Boys have behaved in the “negotiations” it merely confirms what I already thought.

Some people can’t handle being dumped and just get spiteful.

Shame on them tbh.

Socketset:
Seeing how the Brussels Bully Boys have behaved in the “negotiations” it merely confirms what I already thought.

Some people can’t handle being dumped and just get spiteful.

Shame on them tbh.

That’s an epidemic from the top of the eu, right down to its supporters

Carryfast:

Winseer:
If Capitalism worked properly, we’d all be working, because we’d starve if we didn’t.

If the Deep State worked properly - they’d be immortal already, and none of us would ever darken the doors of a Science Lab to learn “how to” ourselves.

It seems that your ideas on the definition of Capitalism are based on Thatcherite principles.Be careful what you wish for.

As for the Deep State it’s actually the same thing as ( your idea of ) Capitalism and Communism when both are taken to their logical conclusion.IE maximum exploitation of an under class,that has no value if/when it ceases to be useful to the establishment for whatever reason.

I never voted for Thatcher, and disliked the woman because she didn’t set ME up with a plum job! There’s no point having Capitalism if there’s no work about! The aim of the Capitalist Regime - should be like Trump IS doing in my mind: Create millions of jobs paying above the minimum wage for ordinary people to get - then make sure everyone capable of working GETS one, rather than plays the “OOh I’ve got a sprained finger from switching on this light - I need benefits. No way can I work 35 hours per week!” card…

hkloss1:
I don’t understand , people, why do you still keep reading and commenting my posts.
If you hate so much what I post , it’s clearly not for, so whenever you see me posting anything about brexit, just don’t read.
What part of that do you struggle to understand?
It’s clearly not for you, so just move along, and go, read and comment posts that you enjoy reading and commenting.
Life’s too short to be stressing so much about someone’s posts.
Just imagine how many other, more interesting for you, and more enjoyable posts you could have read and commented on, instead of wasting your time and efforts on what I post.

Nobody “hates” your posts, I personally am just pointing out to you why we, as UK truck drivers, are predominantly opposed to eu membership.

Winseer:
should be like Trump IS doing in my mind: Create millions of jobs paying above the minimum wage for ordinary people to get - then make sure everyone capable of working GETS one, rather than plays the “OOh I’ve got a sprained finger from switching on this light - I need benefits. No way can I work 35 hours per week!” card…

Meanwhile the US roads are still full of cheap imported Jap crap cars and haven’t seen any big resurgence in the major strategic US industries like steel among numerous others putting the situation back as it was under Kennedy.

While how do you make the link between employment in that roaring Fordist growth spiral and then wanting to make sick workers work.Bearing in mind that he rightly went large on Social Security benefit increases across the board in that regard.

On that note you say didn’t like Thatcher but you obviously think her sickness benefit ‘reforms’,which effectively mean that anyone not paralysed from the neck down is classed as fit to work,are too soft.Good luck with that.As I said be careful what you wish for and ironically it’s that type of Thatcherite bollox which will see Corbyn put in the driving seat at the next GE.It’s a bit like telling your home insurer that you’re happy to pay the premiums but you won’t claim on the policy if you need it. :unamused:

When it comes to arguing about benefits, it always gets said that to cut the benefits of the 90% who are laying it on thick - means cutting the benefits of people who’ve lost both legs, both arms, and their torso as well.

That need not ever be the case.

I would suggest a re-definition of what it actually means to be disabled starting with PHYSICAL disabilities involving a missing body part, or damaged nerve structure tested by things that cannot be faked.

Thus, a person missing limbs - would get paid more benefits. A person with a nerve damage condition - would be paid higher benefits when medically confirmed to have the defect being declared.

Someone saying “It hurts when I laugh - I can’t possibly work” however, should and must get diddly squat under the new reformed system.

If you are missing something that isn’t coming back - then you’re going to need those particular benefits for the rest of one’s life - so WHY try and cut THOSE when you are going to need them for far longer than “just for Christmas”…?

The Conservatives wanted to cut benefits for the scrounger fraternity, and increase them for the genuine disabled. BUT the EU said we have to by EU laws - reduce or raise benefits for everyone at once, or NO one at once. Thus, the Tories quickly got the reputation of “cutting benefits for veterans missing both legs” - when in fact 97% of disabled claimants are not even missing a limb, let alone both their legs…
Once out of the EU - any incumbent government with a majority - shouldn’t any longer have a problem getting through laws which cut benefits for the “try-it-ons”, whilst raising those obviously in need of them. Wouldn’t that be a FAIRER way to proceed, regardless of which side of politics one is on?

Winseer:
When it comes to arguing about benefits, it always gets said that to cut the benefits of the 90% who are laying it on thick - means cutting the benefits of people who’ve lost both legs, both arms, and their torso as well.

That need not ever be the case.

I would suggest a re-definition of what it actually means to be disabled starting with PHYSICAL disabilities involving a missing body part, or damaged nerve structure tested by things that cannot be faked.

Here’s a clue do you really think that when a pilot or train driver is medically retired from flying or train driving,for numerous reasons,that they have to be a paraplegic to claim on their income support policy.If not why the double standards regarding the National Insurance system in which we actually pay in relatively more for relatively zb effectively useless cover.

So a driver loses his licence through diabetes or his back goes partly because of too many years of hand balling loads etc then what under your regime ?.Let me guess he can retrain as an office worker.Thereby possibly adding depression to his problems assuming he can be turned from a driver into an acedemic. :unamused:

The fact is claimants are being scammed in an insurance system that is just a tax rip off and you’re trying to justify it.

hkloss1:
Another set of “good news”, thanks to no deal brexit.
A Polish guy that works at my place, set , thanks to Brexit, his country is getting more valuable investment, from abroad, and here a British company that chose Poland, over this country.

Johnson Matthey chooses Poland to produce new battery materials

LONDON (Reuters) - Chemicals group Johnson Matthey has secured a site in Poland to produce ultra-high energy battery materials and signed a 10-year supply deal with Canada’s Nemaska Lithium as it seeks to grow its exposure to the electric vehicle market.

Plant construction should begin this year at Konin, about 200 kilometres west of Warsaw, and it would have the potential to produce up to 100,000 tonnes per year, Johnson Matthey said in a statement on Thursday.

The is was on track to start commercial production in 2021-22, it added.

Johnson Matthey in 2017 said it was preparing for the shift to electric driving by investing 200 million pounds ($263 million) in developing next-generation technology. It also said it would build a plant in Europe but did not specify where.

It says its material known as enhanced lithium nickel oxide, or eLNO, has a higher energy density than existing technologies.

Johnson Matthey said the Polish plant would place the company’s “operations at the heart of Europe, close to major customers in the battery electric vehicle supply chain”.

Poland, close to the major German car market, has already attracted investment from battery industry players.

Umicore, which competes with Johnson Matthey, is investing 1.38 billion zlotys (275.17 million pounds) in a plant manufacturing cathode materials, while LG Chem is already supplying some German carmakers with electric vehicle batteries made in Poland. Countries around the world have been scrambling to secure a place in the burgeoning electric vehicle market so far dominated by China.

British government officials have stated their support for projects to develop lithium in Britain as one way of bolstering the economy following the country’s decision to leave the European Union, the world’s biggest trading bloc.

uk.reuters.com/article/uk-johns … KKCN1R90VZ

This isn’t just some cheap, simple production, putting toys or tools together, but highly valuable, high tech manufacturing, producing very well paying jobs.
This country has chosen to leave the EU, so no more attractive for this type of investment

Production which moves to Poland does so for one reason, and one reason only- because the cost base is cheaper and therefore it is more profitable for shareholders. Land prices are cheaper, house prices for workers are cheaper, labour costs are cheaper, all expenses are cheaper due to Poland having a post-Communist economy.

We’ve seen the British international transport industry go exactly the same way and for exactly the same reasons, and the British domestic transport industry is destined to go the same way if we remain in the eu.

I’ve challenged you several times now to state what exactly it is you do for a living, and you refuse point-blank to say. So you can’t reasonably expect your views to be taken seriously.

Harry Monk:
I’ve challenged you several times now to state what exactly it is you do for a living, and you refuse point-blank to say. So you can’t reasonably expect your views to be taken seriously.

German freight forwarder heavily reliant on German exports to UK going on East Euro third country transport operations would be a good bet.Having said that I’m not that sure that uk intermodal container work,let alone local multi drop retail or building materials delivery work,is under great threat from East Euro cabotage operations in that regard. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

Can I dispute two points here?

  1. It doesn’t matter in one sense what hkloss does for a living: although this is a transport forum, if he is talking sense (I know Harry thinks otherwise!) does it matter what his job is?
    If we were discussing driver’s back pain maybe a Doctor would be a good (non driver) contributer? On law a solicitor?

Lots of manufacturing is international now; we often use the example of car manufacturing.
In a post Brexit UK how much manufacturing would there be? Even the Brexiteer’s tame economist Patrick Minford thinks UK manufacturing would take a serious tumble. Even worse if “no deal” than the fall on preficts in a ln orderly departure. So Brexit would clearly be bad for British domestic transport as well as international haulage.
Factories are generally built to serve big markets NOT single countries.
We can’t turn the clock to the economies and transport infrastructures of the 1930’s.
Transport is relatively cheap and quick, “progress” has changed the world and although we as drivers may be loosers in this deal, we would be even bigger loosers if we close out eyes to it. You can move a container from Shanghai to Felixstowe for less money than we used to pull a trailer from southern Europe.
Like it or not. Call it “progess” or not, this is the world we live in. Closing out eyes to the fact of multi-national companies is foolishness.

As an international driver starting in 1989 I was better off then, than now. In that time we have seen changes brought about under our membership of the Common Market, European Community, and now European Union. Not all of those changes please me.
Relative to factory workers and “round the corner” drivers I’m not as well paid as before. Well, too bad for me. But closing down more factories here will not make that better will it?
Putting up tariffs and non tax barriers up will make a bad situation worse! Brexit may change things, but I can’t honestly see what it will change for the better, for us workers.

Franglais:
Can I dispute two points here?

  1. It doesn’t matter in one sense what hkloss does for a living: although this is a transport forum, if he is talking sense (I know Harry thinks otherwise!) does it matter what his job is?
    If we were discussing driver’s back pain maybe a Doctor would be a good (non driver) contributer? On law a solicitor?

Lots of manufacturing is international now; we often use the example of car manufacturing.
In a post Brexit UK how much manufacturing would there be? Even the Brexiteer’s tame economist Patrick Minford thinks UK manufacturing would take a serious tumble. Even worse if “no deal” than the fall on preficts in a ln orderly departure. So Brexit would clearly be bad for British domestic transport as well as international haulage.
Factories are generally built to serve big markets NOT single countries.
We can’t turn the clock to the economies and transport infrastructures of the 1930’s.
Transport is relatively cheap and quick, “progress” has changed the world and although we as drivers may be loosers in this deal, we would be even bigger loosers if we close out eyes to it. You can move a container from Shanghai to Felixstowe for less money than we used to pull a trailer from southern Europe.
Like it or not. Call it “progess” or not, this is the world we live in. Closing out eyes to the fact of multi-national companies is foolishness.

As an international driver starting in 1989 I was better off then, than now. In that time we have seen changes brought about under our membership of the Common Market, European Community, and now European Union. Not all of those changes please me.
Relative to factory workers and “round the corner” drivers I’m not as well paid as before. Well, too bad for me. But closing down more factories here will not make that better will it?
Putting up tariffs and non tax barriers up will make a bad situation worse! Brexit may change things, but I can’t honestly see what it will change for the better, for us workers.

It obviously matters what anyone does for a living if it means that they personally benefit from the EU membership stitch up at the expense of the rest of the country.You know a bit like a local councillor having to declare an interest in any potential discussion and decision.

Your ‘dispute’ is based on typical remainer lies that our trading relationship with the EU is beneficial to us.When the reality is it is nothing more than a deficit liability to us to which to you reply with more lies that net doesn’t mean ‘overall’.While that deficit in reality is the result of the wholesale massacre and asset stripping of the country’s industrial base to the benefit of the EU and European industry especially that of Germany.To which your typical answer is that we have to appease the Germans to keep the peace in Europe.On that note the maths say that we’d benefit from a trade war with the EU.In which the obvious solution,to hopefully a resulting massive increase in the price of our net imports,would be to bring back our industry onshore.

But then we all know that the Germans have no intention of shooting their exporters in the foot and what you’re really bothered about is the end of your stinking Federal European dream when others follow us out the door.

Carryfast:

Winseer:
When it comes to arguing about benefits, it always gets said that to cut the benefits of the 90% who are laying it on thick - means cutting the benefits of people who’ve lost both legs, both arms, and their torso as well.

That need not ever be the case.

I would suggest a re-definition of what it actually means to be disabled starting with PHYSICAL disabilities involving a missing body part, or damaged nerve structure tested by things that cannot be faked.

Here’s a clue do you really think that when a pilot or train driver is medically retired from flying or train driving,for numerous reasons,that they have to be a paraplegic to claim on their income support policy.If not why the double standards regarding the National Insurance system in which we actually pay in relatively more for relatively zb effectively useless cover.

So a driver loses his licence through diabetes or his back goes partly because of too many years of hand balling loads etc then what under your regime ?.Let me guess he can retrain as an office worker.Thereby possibly adding depression to his problems assuming he can be turned from a driver into an acedemic. :unamused:

The fact is claimants are being scammed in an insurance system that is just a tax rip off and you’re trying to justify it.

It would indeed be nice if all workers got paid off properly for such things - but in the REAL world - insurance is sold on the implication that it DOES cover such LIKELY outcomes that ruin one’s career - but don’t ACTUALLY pay out on them in real life when they happen! Workers who suddenly get ill and die - are not getting the “Automatic Payouts” from things like “Death in Service Benefit” these days, as supplied (supposedly) by the employing firm themselves… FFS the LAST thing the grieving family wants is some spanish inquisition and form filling to get a £30k payout that was always supposed to be there for “peace of mind” purposes. NOT much good if they start wriggling out of it, the moment the deceased turns out to have died from something OTHER than “Being hit on the head by a meteorite on 29th February” !!! :imp:

Winseer:

Carryfast:

Winseer:
When it comes to arguing about benefits, it always gets said that to cut the benefits of the 90% who are laying it on thick - means cutting the benefits of people who’ve lost both legs, both arms, and their torso as well.

That need not ever be the case.

I would suggest a re-definition of what it actually means to be disabled starting with PHYSICAL disabilities involving a missing body part, or damaged nerve structure tested by things that cannot be faked.

Here’s a clue do you really think that when a pilot or train driver is medically retired from flying or train driving,for numerous reasons,that they have to be a paraplegic to claim on their income support policy.If not why the double standards regarding the National Insurance system in which we actually pay in relatively more for relatively zb effectively useless cover.

So a driver loses his licence through diabetes or his back goes partly because of too many years of hand balling loads etc then what under your regime ?.Let me guess he can retrain as an office worker.Thereby possibly adding depression to his problems assuming he can be turned from a driver into an acedemic. :unamused:

The fact is claimants are being scammed in an insurance system that is just a tax rip off and you’re trying to justify it.

It would indeed be nice if all workers got paid off properly for such things - but in the REAL world - insurance is sold on the implication that it DOES cover such LIKELY outcomes that ruin one’s career - but don’t ACTUALLY pay out on them in real life when they happen! Workers who suddenly get ill and die - are not getting the “Automatic Payouts” from things like “Death in Service Benefit” these days, as supplied (supposedly) by the employing firm themselves… FFS the LAST thing the grieving family wants is some spanish inquisition and form filling to get a £30k payout that was always supposed to be there for “peace of mind” purposes. NOT much good if they start wriggling out of it, the moment the deceased turns out to have died from something OTHER than “Being hit on the head by a meteorite on 29th February” !!! :imp:

How does turning the National Insurance system into a tax revenue raising scam help that situation by making paraplegia the definition of sickness from work.The fact is you’ve got a lot more chance of beating a dodgy private insurer, trying to wriggle out of a clearly worded policy,in court.Than the National Insurance system legally allowed to change the terms and definitions of the policy from medically unfit to do your own job,to paralysis from the neck down during the term of the policy and those with your views acting like turkeys voting for Christmas in that regard.

Insurers are nothing more than Bookmakers who’ll take bets of any amount on an event that won’t happen, but WON’T let people insurer themselves against “likely outcomes” in life.

Winseer:
Insurers are nothing more than Bookmakers who’ll take bets of any amount on an event that won’t happen, but WON’T let people insurer themselves against “likely outcomes” in life.

Being medically retired from your trade ( as opposed to any theoretical job,that anyone who isn’t paralysed from the neck down could hypothetically do ) before the age of 65 is a very likely event and one which numerous income protection insurers cover on a routine basis.Which with your prevalent view of the National Insurance system’s function is more essential than ever to have.

As for Brexit Batten has effectively been thrown under the bus by UKIP’s own NEC having been nominated and confirmed his intent to stand for re election as leader of the Party. :open_mouth:

So we can now add him to the list of Powell,Shore,Benn.While we now know for sure that the Brit establishment is all following the same agenda,being the end game of 1066.While the only hope now is that Batten and his supporters might find a place with the English Democrats and then hope for a miracle before its too late.

As for UKIP I always thought that the contradiction between pro UK Federalist and supposed anti EU was a bit too much to believe and it’s now proved me right by predictably showing its true colours,just like Farage. :open_mouth:

Carryfast:

Winseer:
Insurers are nothing more than Bookmakers who’ll take bets of any amount on an event that won’t happen, but WON’T let people insurer themselves against “likely outcomes” in life.

Being medically retired from your trade ( as opposed to any theoretical job,that anyone who isn’t paralysed from the neck down could hypothetically do ) before the age of 65 is a very likely event and one which numerous income protection insurers cover on a routine basis.Which with your prevalent view of the National Insurance system’s function is more essential than ever to have.

As for Brexit Batten has effectively been thrown under the bus by UKIP’s own NEC having been nominated and confirmed his intent to stand for re election as leader of the Party. :open_mouth:

So we can now add him to the list of Powell,Shore,Benn.While we now know for sure that the Brit establishment is all following the same agenda,being the end game of 1066.While the only hope now is that Batten and his supporters might find a place with the English Democrats and then hope for a miracle before its too late.

As for UKIP I always thought that the contradiction between pro UK Federalist and supposed anti EU was a bit too much to believe and it’s now proved me right by predictably showing its true colours,just like Farage. :open_mouth:

I agree with you about the bit in red, but totally disagree that insurers fully COVER for this “likely” eventuality, as you put it.

This is my beef with insurers of course. If I’m ever “medically retired”, then I’m on the scrapheap of life - NOT showered in benefits, insurance payouts, or symapthies!

The last three people I know who were pro drivers, and got “medically retired” went into a life of poverty, got a secondary illness like Cancer, and died within two years - all three of them. :frowning: :frowning: :frowning:

“Medical Retirement” is most dangerous to life when it has no financial cushion built-in. There isn’t much difference these days between a firm that says it’ll pay Sick Pay, and “Death in service benefit” - than working on an agency ZHC with what one thought was “adequate” insurance cover - only to find that once one crosses that one-way bridge into medical retirement - the money didn’t then materialize… :frowning:

It is even difficult for the grieving family to obtain a prompt payment after death, as the arguments then ensue that “We’re looking into causality here” plus “The disease we were prepared to cover him for - isn’t the one that just killed him, and his critical illness payments CEASED at his death from Cancer/Chrone’s disease/Multiple Sclerosis”

I was left feeling disgusted at the way the insurance industry was glossed over during the Credit Crunch in 2008… It badly needed REFORM - and got off scott-free from any intrusions into their practices.

As a person “Left Wing on FInancial Matters” - this insurance unaccountability and outright SCAMMING when it comes to “Critical Illness Cover” - happens to be one of my biggest bugbears. :imp: