Starmer's vision quest

[Stevo 666]

There was nothing wrong with the explanation. It said:

*NICS is not a hypothecated tax by strict definition.
*NICS is not a narrow band structure.
*NICS is not a ring-fenced structure away from government.
*NICS is a legally defined and protected structure.
*NICS contributes about 18% of NHS allocation.
*NICS pays out for pensions and benefits.


None of this disagrees with the IFS, or says that Reeves should use this money to fill a blackhole in the economy. In other words the problem is that you don't understand the words - and not for the first time!

I could have given the more legal interpretation that the 1992 Act sets up a 'deeming provision' in law. A deeming provision is when the parliament makes a legal instruction on interpretation, sometimes known as a legal fiction. This is parliament saying, ''we know that this is not the case, but less us suppose for our purposes that it is, and we treat it as such.''

Not sure you quite grasped the need to be concise there. Then people might pay more attention to you.

Although tbh I'm not clear what point you're trying to make: can you summarise in one sentence. Bonus points for not sounding arrogant and condescending.

 

[Pross]

I'm not aware of any breaches of the law regarding this. If I'm saying anything, it is that we have successive governments who show little interest in the sovereignty of the people or their elected representatives in parliament. That being the case, how can we now trust them not to help themselves to the NICS money to bail out their fiscal policies if and when they fail?

Conversely, I'm saying if there is a sizeable surplus in the NICS money, which is the case, why can they not use it to pay the WASPI women their dues, or to pay NHS staff when we know that much of that money will return to the general account due the effect of the virtuous circle. This is the method whereby they can utilise money in the NICS account to boost the general account, and keep the NHS staff working and serving the health needs of the country.

To be clear as I know Stevo will read this, this is a criticism of the current government's fiscal policies.

WASPI women should be at the bottom of any payout from Government funds. If there’s money floating around in some kind of reserve spend it on health (especially mental health as under investment there is a drain on so many other services), social care and education. A bunch of pensioners who were marginally less fortunate than the most fortunate generation of all in pension terms but far more than lucky than the generations to follow can FRO the whinging bar stewards.

 

[Stevo 666]

And in other news, the irony of the Labour homelessness minister having to resign over kicking her tenants out and jacking up the rent for the new tenants. Ah, the joys of leftie hypocrisy...

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-08-07/homelessness-minister-urged-to-resign-over-rent-hike-hypocrisy

 

[monkers]

The 1992 Admin Act only re-enacts what was in the 1975 Social Security Act (s133). And that was also re-enacting earlier legislation.

Are you suggesting that this government are more devious than any other in the last 80 years?

NI conts going to a separate fund is not helpful, it has kept generations of pensioners in poverty because they refuse to claim means-tested top ups (charity) but have no issue with state pension (getting back what we paid in).

Exactly. The 1992 Act reaffirms what was already in place—so the legal ring-fence isn’t new, it’s enduring. That’s why it matters when governments treat it as optional. There's also the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2007. It didn’t introduce a new Act, but it did update contribution rates and authorize payments into the National Insurance Fund (NIF) under existing legislation.

I’m suggesting this government is looking more brazen in its disregard for parliamentary sovereignty and fiscal transparency than I would have expected. Previous governments may have bent the rules—this one seems intent on ignoring them as they see fit.

I agree with you about pensioner poverty. In my view the issue isn’t that NICs go to a separate fund—it’s that the fund isn’t used boldly or fairly enough. If the surplus were used to top up pensions automatically, pensioners wouldn’t be relying on means-tested charity to keep themselves afloat. I would also agree, thought you haven't said so, that having a separate fund has not helped the Waspi women. We can see from the accounts that the money is there to pay them compensation - it's just the political will that isn't.

Last thought. None of us get back what we paid in, you no doubt realise that the state pension scheme just doesn't work like that. We pay NICs to pay the pensions of those that get there before us. I think that misunderstanding has social consequence. Current pensioners may have a kinder attitude to young working people who are as a matter of fact paying their pensions.

 

[monkers]

WASPI women should be at the bottom of any payout from Government funds. If there’s money floating around in some kind of reserve spend it on health (especially mental health as under investment there is a drain on so many other services), social care and education. A bunch of pensioners who were marginally less fortunate than the most fortunate generation of all in pension terms but far more than lucky than the generations to follow can FRO the whinging bar stewards.

I strongly disagree. I'd say you've fallen victim to the narrative that there isn't the money in the country to pay for the things on your list. The fact that the WASPI women and the services you list go without should be a wake up call. There's no such thing as a government fund - only a public fund managed by the government. Some might say ''mismanaged by the government''.

 

[monkers]

And in other news, the irony of the Labour homelessness minister having to resign over kicking her tenants out and jacking up the rent for the new tenants. Ah, the joys of leftie hypocrisy...

https://www.itv.com/news/2025-08-07/homelessness-minister-urged-to-resign-over-rent-hike-hypocrisy

Maybe you need to wake up to the facts at this point - Labour are not lefties. They will not tax wealth - they are your team.

 

[Pross]

I strongly disagree. I'd say you've fallen victim to the narrative that there isn't the money in the country to pay for the things on your list. The fact that the WASPI women and the services you list go without should be a wake up call. There's no such thing as a government fund - only a public fund managed by the government. Some might say ''mismanaged by the government''.

Absolutely all of the countries services would need to be sorted out and the state pension age reduced to 65 for all before I would consider the WASPI lot worthy of a payout.

 

[monkers]

Not sure you quite grasped the need to be concise there. Then people might pay more attention to you.

Although tbh I'm not clear what point you're trying to make: can you summarise in one sentence. Bonus points for not sounding arrogant and condescending.

I assume two sentences are too much for you. No bonus points required by me.

 

[Mr Celine]

I would also agree, thought you haven't said so, that having a separate fund has not helped the Waspi women. We can see from the accounts that the money is there to pay them compensation - it's just the political will that isn't.

Sorry, I don't see any reason to compensate the waspi women. They'll still, on average, get more than men of the same age from their state pensions simply because statistically they will live longer. And anyone who claims to have been unaware of the changes must have been living under a rock, there was plenty of coverage in the media at the time.

 

[monkers]

Sorry, I don't see any reason to compensate the waspi women. They'll still, on average, get more than men of the same age from their state pensions simply because statistically they will live longer. And anyone who claims to have been unaware of the changes must have been living under a rock, there was plenty of coverage in the media at the time.

They weren't given advanced notice in writing that their pension rights were changing. Some of them retired from their jobs only to find no pension for another five years and no income. The relevant Tory minister at the time told them there's no upper age limit on modern apprenticeships and they should go and retrain to be plumbers.

 

[Mr Celine]

They weren't given advanced notice in writing that their pension rights were changing. Some of them retired from their jobs only to find no pension for another five years and no income. The relevant Tory minister at the time told them there's no upper age limit on modern apprenticeships and they should go and retrain to be plumbers.

My pension rights have changed at least twice during my working life. I don't recall getting any notice about that either.

 

[monkers]

My pension rights have changed at least twice during my working life. I don't recall getting any notice about that either.

Sorry to hear that; that's really shabby.