I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet.
A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The temporary westbound crossrail platforms at Paddington are right next to the HEx platforms if you want to head back to the airport.
But the eastbound platforms are a completely different matter - across the station, down a couple of escalators and through two sets of ticket barriers. Allow ten minutes.
Thanks - I may be visiting London very briefly this week, and will check it out
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The obvious answer is that a leaving do was deemed reasonably necessary for work. Would you really see an employee leave without marking it in some way?
During the pandemic we marked it online, because you know, we're not arseholes, and didn't want to spread Covid-19.
The news that pensioners are to get a 10% rise is downright disturbing.
Are Labour or Lib Dens going to oppose it ?
Doubt it. Very hard to oppose a giveaway. It stinks though, it can’t be defended, given the state of public services, government finances, and the suffering of those on low incomes.
And the suffering of those on low incomes? All those earning under £35k have now got a NI cut this year, only those earning over £35k will see a NI rise. Median salary in the UK? £31k so most workers will benefit from Sunak's NI plans. Median salary in London? £39k. So most Londoners will be hit but most of them vote Labour anyway.
It's about pension and the dole. No mention of health or social care, the mobility allowance aside. And it's not enough to cover pensions. So you are talking, erm, terminological inexactitudes.
I am not given this government today has just increased NI on those earning over £35k mainly to fund health and social care. Hence it is called the Health and Social Care Levy
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet.
A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
Should be kind of sorted in the autumn, given that you should be able to go from Stratford straight through to Paddington, and Abbey Wood to Reading/Heathrow. Bond Street should also be open.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The obvious answer is that a leaving do was deemed reasonably necessary for work. Would you really see an employee leave without marking it in some way?
During the pandemic we marked it online, because you know, we're not arseholes, and didn't want to spread Covid-19.
We had most of them when restrictions ended.
But you were all WFH anyway, right?
No, a few were still were working in the office.
Right. "A few".
Downing Street AIUI they were pretty much all in the office, so demanding they all went home to have a leaving drink over Zoom would have been ridiculous and (AFAIK) the problem according to the Met is not that there was a leaving drink but that there were (after the PM had left) many.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
Wait, is pressurising the police OK again?
We've done this sketch but this is hardly pressuring the police — that would have been writing to the Commissioner *before* decisions were taken and fines dished out.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The obvious answer is that a leaving do was deemed reasonably necessary for work. Would you really see an employee leave without marking it in some way?
During the pandemic we marked it online, because you know, we're not arseholes, and didn't want to spread Covid-19.
We had most of them when restrictions ended.
But you were all WFH anyway, right?
No, a few were still were working in the office.
Right. "A few".
Downing Street AIUI they were pretty much all in the office, so demanding they all went home to have a leaving drink over Zoom would have been ridiculous and (AFAIK) the problem accordign to the Met is not that there was a leaving drink but that there were (after the PM had left) many.
Stop defending the indefensible.
As my father's ex colleagues will tell you, they weren't even allowed to have a Christmas lunch/party together on Christmas (day) 2020 because that was against the laws/regulations Boris Johnson handed down.
If hospital staff weren't allowed to do things like then it shouldn't have been happening in Downing Street either.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
Wait, is pressurising the police OK again?
No, it is wrong now and it was wrong when Patel and Dorries were doing it as well. Did not hear the fan boys criticising them about that though.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
Wait, is pressurising the police OK again?
Always is, have you seen how inept/corrupt our rozzers generally are?
They actually tried to frame a sitting member of the cabinet.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Like most Tory leaders, Mrs Thatcher was elected — by the self-styled most sophisticated electorate in the world — by mistake. She was, arguably, the Jeremy Corbyn of her day.
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet.
A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Like most Tory leaders, Mrs Thatcher was elected — by the self-styled most sophisticated electorate in the world — by mistake. She was, arguably, the Jeremy Corbyn of her day.
Remind me, how many cabinet/front bench posts Corbyn had before he became leader?
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The obvious answer is that a leaving do was deemed reasonably necessary for work. Would you really see an employee leave without marking it in some way?
During the pandemic we marked it online, because you know, we're not arseholes, and didn't want to spread Covid-19.
We had most of them when restrictions ended.
But you were all WFH anyway, right?
No, a few were still were working in the office.
Right. "A few".
Downing Street AIUI they were pretty much all in the office, so demanding they all went home to have a leaving drink over Zoom would have been ridiculous and (AFAIK) the problem accordign to the Met is not that there was a leaving drink but that there were (after the PM had left) many.
Stop defending the indefensible.
As my father's ex colleagues will tell you, they weren't even allowed to have a Christmas lunch/party together on Christmas (day) 2020 because that was against the laws/regulations Boris Johnson handed down.
If hospital staff weren't allowed to do things like then it shouldn't have been happening in Downing Street either.
Oh, I agree with that last sentence. But my problem is with the first half of it, not the second.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The state pension is a pittance, and it would be unfair that the poorest pensioners had a real term cut. Those living on cushy final salary pensions, however…
What is a cushy final salary pension anyway? My final salary teaching pension is barely 250 a week for 32 years in the scheme. I won't get my state pension for 6 years so that's my lot. Out of that I have to find 50 a week for energy, so we are hardly cushy.
A cushy final salary pension is one where employer contributions of almost 25% of your wage let you retire at 60 with a pension of a thousand pounds a month. No doubt it seems like a come-down for you, given that the fraction of 32/80 suggests you were on c.£48,000 per year before you retired - but most people in the private sector will work a lot longer than from age 28 to age 60 and retire on much less.
The reality is that we will all live (on average) a long time after retirement. During that time, not only will we need a pension (to pay for food, electricity, etc.) but also increasingly expensive medical - and maybe social - care.
When combined with falling birthrates, this poses a fundamental problem for ageing democracies. There are ever greater numbers of (voting) retirees being supported by a diminishing number of people of working age.
Whether people have "saved" or not, is somewhat beside the point. The needs of the non-workers must be met out of the economic output of the workers - the only question is whether it is done via ownership of companies (saving) or via the taxation of workers' output.
And there's another side to this. Not only do workers need to hand over more of their paychecks, but more and more workers need to be diverted from other jobs into ones where they look after the elderly. Combined with a sub-replacement birthrate, this means that the number of people working in productive (and export oriented) industries is structurally declining.
Governments that choose to pick the pockets of the most productive workers, will see said workers depart for places where demographics mean the tax environment is less malign. (A new brain drain.)
Governments that choose to reduce benefits to the elderly will get slaughtered at the ballot box.
The news that pensioners are to get a 10% rise is downright disturbing.
Are Labour or Lib Dens going to oppose it ?
Doubt it. Very hard to oppose a giveaway. It stinks though, it can’t be defended, given the state of public services, government finances, and the suffering of those on low incomes.
And the suffering of those on low incomes? All those earning under £35k have now got a NI cut this year, only those earning over £35k will see a NI rise. Median salary in the UK? £31k so most workers will benefit from Sunak's NI plans. Median salary in London? £39k. So most Londoners will be hit but most of them vote Labour anyway.
It's about pension and the dole. No mention of health or social care, the mobility allowance aside. And it's not enough to cover pensions. So you are talking, erm, terminological inexactitudes.
I am not given this government today has just increased NI on those earning over £35k mainly to fund health and social care. Hence it is called the Health and Social Care Levy
Just because they are fibbing doesn't mean you can do so too.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Like most Tory leaders, Mrs Thatcher was elected — by the self-styled most sophisticated electorate in the world — by mistake. She was, arguably, the Jeremy Corbyn of her day.
Remind me, how many cabinet/front bench posts Corbyn had before he became leader?
Unlike Mrs Thatcher...
Think back to the mid-70s. Mrs Thatcher was on the ballot as the token right wing candidate, and Airey Neave and his fellow-canvassers assured MPs that this was a protest vote to bring Ted to his senses.
State pension is set to soar 10 PER CENT after Government confirms triple lock will be restored... but No10 warns public sector workers not to expect pay hikes to match inflation
What a parasitical generation of pensioners we have.
Make them pay NI.
Boris sending a bung to his core vote.
When the triple lock was suspended for a year all the other parties cried havoc and objecting to that, instead of saying it should be permanently stopped.
When Theresa May proposed abolishing the triple lock, all other parties cried havoc then.
The Tories are pandering to the grey vote yes, but all the other parties are even worse. At least the Tories sometimes grasp that it is a problem, unlike everyone else it seems.
It is the differential treatment of the old and young that’s so objectionable about this. There is no ‘at least’.
The generational unfairness is the inevitable result of what happens when you give ever further welfare to a generation that never paid or saved for it though. The burden has to fall upon the shoulders of those who are working, or be 'borrowed' which is just further burdening the young with more taxes in perpetuity in the future.
It would be great to see a party saying to end the generational unfairness by paring back the unfunded welfare state, but none of the opposition parties are suggesting that.
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
The obvious answer is that a leaving do was deemed reasonably necessary for work. Would you really see an employee leave without marking it in some way?
What we did was say: "Good luck, let's make sure we get together after this lockdown is done to say goodbye properly." We never did, of course. But that's not really the point!
BREAKING: Sadiq Khan has written to Acting Met Commissioner Sir Steve House demanding a public explanation as to why Boris was not fined for attending the Lee Cain leaving party. 1/ https://twitter.com/evansma/status/1529102628155695104
Wait, is pressurising the police OK again?
Is letting Boris off the hook OK again?
No, but there will be plenty of press demands on the police regardless.
Ultimately his judges are first Tory MPs and then the public, who will also hopefully judge the Tory MPs harshly for not holding the PM to account.
The state pension is a pittance, and it would be unfair that the poorest pensioners had a real term cut. Those living on cushy final salary pensions, however…
What is a cushy final salary pension anyway? My final salary teaching pension is barely 250 a week for 32 years in the scheme. I won't get my state pension for 6 years so that's my lot. Out of that I have to find 50 a week for energy, so we are hardly cushy.
A cushy final salary pension is one where employer contributions of almost 25% of your wage let you retire at 60 with a pension of a thousand pounds a month. No doubt it seems like a come-down for you, given that the fraction of 32/80 suggests you were on c.£48,000 per year before you retired - but most people in the private sector will work a lot longer than from age 28 to age 60 and retire on much less.
The reality is that we will all live (on average) a long time after retirement. During that time, not only will we need a pension (to pay for food, electricity, etc.) but also increasingly expensive medical - and maybe social - care.
When combined with falling birthrates, this poses a fundamental problem for ageing democracies. There are ever greater numbers of (voting) retirees being supported by a diminishing number of people of working age.
Whether people have "saved" or not, is somewhat beside the point. The needs of the non-workers must be met out of the economic output of the workers - the only question is whether it is done via ownership of companies (saving) or via the taxation of workers' output.
And there's another side to this. Not only do workers need to hand over more of their paychecks, but more and more workers need to be diverted from other jobs into ones where they look after the elderly. Combined with a sub-replacement birthrate, this means that the number of people working in productive (and export oriented) industries is structurally declining.
Governments that choose to pick the pockets of the most productive workers, will see said workers depart for places where demographics mean the tax environment is less malign. (A new brain drain.)
Governments that choose to reduce benefits to the elderly will get slaughtered at the ballot box.
It's pretty ugly.
Perhaps we should weight people's votes in terms of the numbers of years they have left before their expected time of death.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Cost of living, then cost of living, then cost of living. Continue to make the odd joke about parties and get the message through that Tory MPs in general have refused to take action against the PM.
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet.
A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Labour (and the left) know Boris is a proven winner and they're worried stiff he'll regain his popularity between now and the next election so they'll continue to do everything they can to get rid of him.
The average pensioner also earns more than the average worker.
How on earth do you end up with a country like that?
'In the period FYE 2019 to 2021, single pensioners in the UK had an average income of £233 per week'. So Mr Google informs me. No, I couldn't live on it either.
The full state pension buys a bottle of champagne daily. So it helps.
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Doubt anything Starmer says is going to make much difference to whether Johnson stays or not.
Both rich topics for Starmer to get his teeth into, but personally suspect the parties line builds a broader coalition for Starmer. That's the topic which has put him ahead in the polls.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
The UK is set to become the first European nation to operate a Maritime Ballistic Missile Defence capability that can detect and destroy Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles as it commits to a significant upgrade of Britain’s fleet of Type 45 destroyers.
The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile previously used only in French and Italian land systems, will help UK forces combat the increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles at sea by developing the missile into a maritime variant.
The Ministry of Defence has placed an initial contract for this work with MBDA which, when delivered, will be worth more than £300 million and support more than 100 jobs across the UK - including highly skilled technology roles in areas such as system design and software engineering in Stevenage, Cowes, Bristol and Bolton.
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Cost of living, then cost of living, then cost of living. Continue to make the odd joke about parties and get the message through that Tory MPs in general have refused to take action against the PM.
Yes, that's what I'd do. Appear above the fray and focused on the more serious stuff. Because there's plenty of others who will go at Boris on partygate. Also if you're Starmer you'd probably rather people forget about your own performance on covid.
Good grief - what a bunch of snowflakes we have become: "Later in the morning, presenter Annita Mcveigh apologised to any Manchester United fans who may have been offended."
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
Can you imagine the reaction if the gov tried to make the winter fuel allowance taxable.
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Cost of living, then cost of living, then cost of living. Continue to make the odd joke about parties and get the message through that Tory MPs in general have refused to take action against the PM.
Yes, that's what I'd do. Appear above the fray and focused on the more serious stuff. Because there's plenty of others who will go at Boris on partygate. Also if you're Starmer you'd probably rather people forget about your own performance on covid.
Ooh, that reminds me, covid! Hadn't looked at the stats for a while. Positive tests no longer really meaningful or comparable, if they ever were, but deaths and hospitalisations now lower than at any point since July last year. Which is nice.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
Okay, but why increase NI not tax? That doesn't make sense, but it is wqhat HMG have just done. And called it the health and social care levy, which is nonsense anyway as (a) the pensions aren't paid for properly, and (b) the social care bit mostly benefits the oldies, as does health.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
Can you imagine the reaction if the gov tried to make the winter fuel allowance taxable.
given it is in reality just a bit extra state pension around winter then it is illogical to not treat it like the state pension as taxable income - anyone whose income is just the state pension would still effectively get it tax free but rich pensioners will pay 40% on it
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
You were spending months telling us that NI is already solely for pension and unemployment. Now siddenly it's not. It's actually a tax and merged with other taxes into a single pool.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
Probably because Heath had won the popular vote in February 1974 in a hung parliament, only once he lost the popular vote and Wilson won a small overall majority in October 1974 was he toppled
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
Okay, but why increase NI not tax? That doesn't make sense, but it is wqhat HMG have just done. And called it the health and social care levy, which is nonsense anyway as (a) the pensions aren't paid for properly, and (b) the social care bit mostly benefits the oldies, as does health.
oh i agree ! NI tax rises are just an insult to intelligence as though there is a good pot of NI money that only goes to angelic things like the NHS
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
You were spending months telling us that NI is already solely for pension and unemployment. Now siddenly it's not. It's actually a tax and merged with other taxes into a single pool.
It isn't as you cannot get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits, you cannot get JSA now without sufficient NI contributions (unlike UC) and the rise in NI for those earning over £35k is specifically to fund the NHS and social care
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
Remember Heath was the first elected Tory leader, prior to that leaders emerged after the magic circle took soundings.
Tory MPs weren't used to ousting and electing leaders at that point, there was an expectation that the magic circle would do the ousting.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
You were spending months telling us that NI is already solely for pension and unemployment. Now siddenly it's not. It's actually a tax and merged with other taxes into a single pool.
It isn't as you cannot get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits, you cannot get JSA now without sufficient NI contributions (unlike UC) and the rise in NI for those earning over £35k is specifically to fund the NHS and social care
That is not the same thing as hypothecation of a tax. Which is the term that you used.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it. Wont bother public sector workers much as they effectively get a huge employer contribution but those in the private sector pay a lot bigger proportion of pension contributions from theri own pay (with NI already dedcucted)
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
You were spending months telling us that NI is already solely for pension and unemployment. Now siddenly it's not. It's actually a tax and merged with other taxes into a single pool.
It isn't as you cannot get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits, you cannot get JSA now without sufficient NI contributions (unlike UC) and the rise in NI for those earning over £35k is specifically to fund the NHS and social care
That is not the same thing as hypothecation of a tax. Which is the term that you used.
No but it isn't a tax either, I also said it 'should be hypothecated' not 'it is'
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
Probably because Heath had won the popular vote in February 1974 in a hung parliament, only once he lost the popular vote and Wilson won a small overall majority in October 1974 was he toppled
There was great tension in the air at that time. Everyone knew that Wilson would have to call a second election in the autumn, given February's inconclusive result. Storm clouds were gathering over the economy and there was serious unrest in Northern Ireland. It just was not the time for a leadership election. Ted had made his bed and everyone had to lie in it.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector. I agrree todays pensioners need to contribute more but merging NI is not the answer - Inheritance tax and social care loophole closing are
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
Belay that! Looks like Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell have very recently got their T2/T3 service!
I doubt the Gray report makes the slightest difference, most Tory voters remaining have already decided they could not care less about partygate.
Far more significant would be a poll showing a Hunt or Sunak or Truss or Wallace led Tories leading Starmer Labour while Johnson's Tories continue to trail. It was polls in 1990 showing a Heseltine or Major led Tories leading Kinnock Labour while a Thatcher led Tories trailed that did for Maggie. Similarly in 2019 it was polls showing a Johnson led Tories leading Corbyn Labour while the May led Tories trailed that did for Theresa. Equally polls in 2007 showing a Brown led Labour briefly doing better than Blair led Labour led to Labour MPs pressure to push Blair to name a resignation date.
At the end of the day a majority of Tory MPs will only care about removing Johnson if they think it will save their seats, whatever Gray says.
Where there polls showing that a Thatcher lead Tory party would get a better result than a Heath-led one before his political demise?
Heath had lost a general election and refused to go when that occurred.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
I've always wondered why he wasn't removed straight after the February 74 debacle?
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
Remember Heath was the first elected Tory leader, prior to that leaders emerged after the magic circle took soundings.
Tory MPs weren't used to ousting and electing leaders at that point, there was an expectation that the magic circle would do the ousting.
Heath was also the first Tory leader and PM from a working class and state school background and he had won the 1970 general election against the odds
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
Absolutely not, NI should be hypothecated specifically for the state pension, contributory unemployment benefits and the NHS and social care
You were spending months telling us that NI is already solely for pension and unemployment. Now siddenly it's not. It's actually a tax and merged with other taxes into a single pool.
It isn't as you cannot get the state pension without sufficient NI contributions or credits, you cannot get JSA now without sufficient NI contributions (unlike UC) and the rise in NI for those earning over £35k is specifically to fund the NHS and social care
That is not the same thing as hypothecation of a tax. Which is the term that you used.
No but it isn't a tax either, I also said it 'should be hypothecated' not 'it is'
NI is not a tax?
Have you been trying to divide both sides of an equation by zero and proving that way they are the same?
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
No. Abolish them all instead of complexifying the tax system; but ensure a decent income. The ludicrous add ons like free this and that, bus pass, (no use to millions who never see a bus anywhere near) fuel allowance and all that is gimmickry for politicians.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector
No, they didn't. Today's state pension, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Bus passes and all the other welfare that pensioners get, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Savings to pay for nursing homes, where is the pot of funds to pay for that?
Most of the welfare state now is absorbed by pensioners, and none of it was saved for.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
Okay, but why increase NI not tax? That doesn't make sense, but it is wqhat HMG have just done. And called it the health and social care levy, which is nonsense anyway as (a) the pensions aren't paid for properly, and (b) the social care bit mostly benefits the oldies, as does health.
oh i agree ! NI tax rises are just an insult to intelligence as though there is a good pot of NI money that only goes to angelic things like the NHS
I'd be tempted to have a properly hypothecated health and social care tax as a component of income tax, abandon the stupid levy. It could eventually start at a lower income level than base rate becoming a graduated step for income tax. Other income tax rates would be reduced. State that the aim is to reduce employees NI versus income tax over time. Totally abolishing NI best approach but politically challenging. I suppose contributions to state pension could be based on years of paying income tax. Would be fairer and have economic growth benefits, why tax employment?
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector
No, they didn't. Today's state pension, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Bus passes and all the other welfare that pensioners get, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Savings to pay for nursing homes, where is the pot of funds to pay for that?
Most of the welfare state now is absorbed by pensioners, and none of it was saved for.
I am talking about pensions that are not the state pension - you pay into a pension when working out of wages that have been effectively taxed at the NI rate (as you get the PAYE back) -that is why pensions (when recieved) are taxed for PAYE but not NI as you have not already paid PAYE on that income but you have NI
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
No. Abolish them all instead of complexifying the tax system; but ensure a decent income. The ludicrous add ons like free this and that, bus pass, (no use to millions who never see a bus anywhere near) fuel allowance and all that is gimmickry for politicians.
The bus pass is actually rather useful - it gets oldies out of the house and incrseases service usage, so helps maintain services. It's a much underestimated bit of social kit, I think, and as it is useful for almost anyone, bus services permitting, these in the tax paying brackets get some benefit too. .
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector. I agrree todays pensioners need to contribute more but merging NI is not the answer - Inheritance tax and social care loophole closing are
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
Belay that! Looks like Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell have very recently got their T2/T3 service!
The news that pensioners are to get a 10% rise is downright disturbing.
Are Labour or Lib Dens going to oppose it ?
Doubt it. Very hard to oppose a giveaway. It stinks though, it can’t be defended, given the state of public services, government finances, and the suffering of those on low incomes.
And the suffering of those on low incomes? All those earning under £35k have now got a NI cut this year, only those earning over £35k will see a NI rise. Median salary in the UK? £31k so most workers will benefit from Sunak's NI plans. Median salary in London? £39k. So most Londoners will be hit but most of them vote Labour anyway.
The poorest pensioners too will benefit from a state pension rise
The idea that because some voters “vote Labour anyway” and can therefore be ignored by the government just tells me you’re an absolute moral nullity.
I find HY's analysis that so long as right wing governments are elected across the globe, everything in the world is fine and dandy, even if those governments are corrupt and incompetent, shall we say "unusual".
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
Okay, but why increase NI not tax? That doesn't make sense, but it is wqhat HMG have just done. And called it the health and social care levy, which is nonsense anyway as (a) the pensions aren't paid for properly, and (b) the social care bit mostly benefits the oldies, as does health.
oh i agree ! NI tax rises are just an insult to intelligence as though there is a good pot of NI money that only goes to angelic things like the NHS
I'd be tempted to have a properly hypothecated health and social care tax as a component of income tax, abandon the stupid levy. It could eventually start at a lower income level than base rate becoming a graduated step for income tax. Other income tax rates would be reduced. State that the aim is to reduce employees NI versus income tax over time. Totally abolishing NI best approach but politically challenging. I suppose contributions to state pension could be based on years of paying income tax. Would be fairer and have economic growth benefits, why tax employment?
It's interesting that our resident village Tory is so desperate to pretend that NI is almost [edit] a properly hypothecated tax - "health andf social care levy" as if that makes it one - but also relentlessly defends its increase, as against IT (if it were so important to raise money, why not IT and tax well off of all ages)? The answer is of course the pandering to the rich pensioner by the Tories, seen also in such things as savings interest allowances.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector
No, they didn't. Today's state pension, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Bus passes and all the other welfare that pensioners get, where is the pot of funds to pay for that? Savings to pay for nursing homes, where is the pot of funds to pay for that?
Most of the welfare state now is absorbed by pensioners, and none of it was saved for.
I am talking about pensions that are not the state pension - you pay into a pension when working out of wages that have been effectively taxed at the NI rate (as you get the PAYE back) -that is why pensions are taxed for PAYE but not NI
Except that the NI rate today is not the NI rate of the past, so no that's not true.
Of course all money is taxed many times over all the time, but there's no reason to exempt those with the broadest shoulders, who get the most welfare too, from paying for the welfare they're receiving.
Since New Labour there has been a fetishization of not raising the basic rate of income tax by politicians trying to con the electorate. All parties are therefor proposing convoluted, unfair and inefficient methods of taxation.
The news that pensioners are to get a 10% rise is downright disturbing.
Are Labour or Lib Dens going to oppose it ?
Doubt it. Very hard to oppose a giveaway. It stinks though, it can’t be defended, given the state of public services, government finances, and the suffering of those on low incomes.
And the suffering of those on low incomes? All those earning under £35k have now got a NI cut this year, only those earning over £35k will see a NI rise. Median salary in the UK? £31k so most workers will benefit from Sunak's NI plans. Median salary in London? £39k. So most Londoners will be hit but most of them vote Labour anyway.
The poorest pensioners too will benefit from a state pension rise
The idea that because some voters “vote Labour anyway” and can therefore be ignored by the government just tells me you’re an absolute moral nullity.
I find HY's analysis that so long as right wing governments are elected across the globe, everything in the world is fine and dandy, even if those governments are corrupt and incompetent, shall we say "unusual".
And still no answer to my asking why it doesn't matter that so many go without dental care.
Sorry, but feeling a bit sensitive on that (literally, after treatment for a painful decay and further attention yesterday).
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector. I agrree todays pensioners need to contribute more but merging NI is not the answer - Inheritance tax and social care loophole closing are
What do you mean by social care loophole?
whereby houses are signed over to relatives etc to stop them being assessed. There is no point having the state pay for care so that 60 something children of care home residents then get a big inheritance
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Labour (and the left) know Boris is a proven winner and they're worried stiff he'll regain his popularity between now and the next election so they'll continue to do everything they can to get rid of him.
Starmer will go in hard...
Well, he is the greasy piglet, but regaining popularity is generally very hard to do.
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
why the bus pass and winter fuel allowance are not classed as taxable income I never know - given the actual state pension is taxable income but not these add-ons
No. Abolish them all instead of complexifying the tax system; but ensure a decent income. The ludicrous add ons like free this and that, bus pass, (no use to millions who never see a bus anywhere near) fuel allowance and all that is gimmickry for politicians.
The bus pass is actually rather useful - it gets oldies out of the house and incrseases service usage, so helps maintain services. It's a much underestimated bit of social kit, I think, and as it is useful for almost anyone, bus services permitting, these in the tax paying brackets get some benefit too. .
It's great for boozy days out.
I have never understood why someone would live to old age somewhere there isn't public transport. However much you like living in the sticks, it makes sense to move to a town after you retire with good access to services, transport etc. At some point you may be unable to drive and need to maintain an independent life.
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
Belay that! Looks like Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell have very recently got their T2/T3 service!
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
Thought it would be - that's the typical story of too slow compared to driving (bus) and a too infrequent train service...
Even if there was a train every 15 minutes it would still be better to drive. Cheaper, for one thing.
That's a function of the way you pay for driving.
You pay a huge upfront cost to have a car, and several large costs each year to continue to own one - but once you do that, the costs per mile are pretty low. Whereas the costs to you personally of having public transport available are very low, but the costs per mile of making a journey are high.
If this is seen as a problem there are solutions, but they require more of a remodelling of behaviours than most people are prepared to make. (Our family wouldn't need to own two cars - what a waste of assets! - if we could be reasonably sure one would be available to use when we wanted. The cost per mile could be high, but the overall cost of motoring would still be lower - but the motivation to use non-car modes when we could, like, for 800m trips to One Stop to buy milk, would be there. We'd be better off, public transport would be more viable and therefore more plentiful and therefore more attractive, the planet would be cleaner. But we'd have to stop using the boot of the car as a shed for things-without-permanent-homes.)
A couple of decades ago I worked on a project for the DfT. I developed the road routing portion of their transport portal. The basic idea being you would put in origin and destination and it would give you a route for road, rail and bus to get there. The idea being when people used it and saw how much cheaper and convenient public transport was that they would get out of their cars.
They ended up loading all sorts of costs such as cost of car, wear and tear, insurance onto the road costing. As I remember cost of car was calculated for example as average price paid for a new car/ average number of miles expected in a cars lifetime.
85% of the time it was still cheaper and quicker to go by car than public transport. This number rapidly increasing as you added car occupants. As I remember we calculated put car passengers to 2 and it was literally 5% of journeys that were cheaper by public transport still.
Good grief - what a bunch of snowflakes we have become: "Later in the morning, presenter Annita Mcveigh apologised to any Manchester United fans who may have been offended."
As a United supporter since 1953 I am not the least offended, indeed it was accurate
I was in town today and took the opportunity to ride Crossrail on its first official day, as I was mildly curious to discover what £20 billion buys you in 2022. On the whole I was moderately impressed, at least compared to other government procurement cockups or wastes of similar magnitude, like the Olympics or Northern Ireland.
It is fast and fairly smooth, apart from the need to change at Paddington and Liverpool Street. Hopefully those will be sorted out next year. And it obviously isn't great that Bond Street isn't open yet. , there A distinctly weird touch was just outside Paddington station, where a group of young lovelies in Crossrail t-shirts were singing "Purple Train, Purple Train, Purple Train".
How easy is it to get between the Heathrow Express and Elizabeth Line platforms?
The Elizabeth Line station is underground, along the western flank of the main station. Exit the HEx and turn right through the main course, turn right briefly onto platform 1, and then turn left at the little bronze Paddington Bear, and you'll wind up right outside either of two entrances to the Lizzie Line.
I notice on Google maps that from here to Heathrow is showing as 1:11 (at its fastest) using Elizabeth + Heathrow Express, or 1:27 if I change to the Paddington leg of the EL. Interesting to see what is fastest once they've joined up the 2 lines later this year. Do you know if there will be express-style trains that stop through central London then go fast to Heathrow without stopping?
At present, there are two Heathrow service patterns. Heathrow T5 trains that stop everywhere, including Acton, Ealing, West Ealing, Hanwell, Southall and Hayes. And the Heathrow T2/T3 trains that skip Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell.
Belay that! Looks like Acton, West Ealing and Hanwell have very recently got their T2/T3 service!
Doesn't look, ATM anyway, as if one will be able to go from Shenfield to Heathrow yet. Or, from the website, without changing.
Yeah I know - and Ilford's new station building (inc. lifts) is WAY behind schedule!
From the autumn, we should be able to go from Stratford straight through to Paddington (low level), and change there for Heathrow. Abbey Wood trains will go westward to Heathrow and Reading, so at least it'll be the same platform!
Only NEXT YEAR will it be possible to do Stratford to Heathrow direct (and Reading presumably).
On the state pension. It would be cruel to cut the spending power of the state pension, as there are many pensioners who have absolutely no other income, and the state pension is pretty paltry.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
Spot on. When you have a few bob an extra £9000 a year always helps. On its own it doesn't get to first base. Pensioners should be taxed properly and progressively.
Merge tax and NI. Though there is a case for bringing back the age allowance there used to be, as being old is genuinely more expensive in some ways.
this is hard and unfair to do though given pensions have been paid for with post NI money (pre PAYE but post NI money)- people who saved for a pension would effectively be paying NI twice on the same income
That's neither hard nor unfair.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
except of course it is unfair especially on those who are of working age now and paying pension contributions after NI has been deducted from their pay packet. What it will mean is that nobody saves for a pension as you get doubel NI taxed on it
Why is that unfair? They didn't fund their own retirement, had today's pensioners rectified this issue while they were working and bequeathed a pot of saved funds to be used for their retirement there would be no issue. Pensions could go up or down linked to the performance of that pot and that would be the end of the matter.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
of course workers fund their retirement ? especially in the private sector. I agrree todays pensioners need to contribute more but merging NI is not the answer - Inheritance tax and social care loophole closing are
What do you mean by social care loophole?
whereby houses are signed over to relatives etc to stop them being assessed. There is no point having the state pay for care so that 60 something children of care home residents then get a big inheritance
Doesn't work. That sort of thing is on the public registry and easily looked up.
I find this screaming at politicians across the road like this pretty pathetic. Its a terrible import from America.
Indeed, that's neither incredible nor original by Sam Coates, he does it all the time.
A devastating interview would be incredible content, but I've never seen him be able to pull that off.
Simply shouting at people without reply might get likes on Twitter though. It certainly seems to suit the way Twitter operates, so I can see why our resident Retweeter likes it.
Tottenham Court Road to Paddington in FIVE minutes
Farringdon to Canary Wharf: ten minutes
Heathrow to anywhere in central London: thirty minutes, 44 minutes to Canary Wharf
Game-changer for a lot of places along the line
More money spunked on London and the South East while the rest of the nation gets nothing.
Au contraire. We get massive bus cuts.
Rest of the country needs to stop voting Tory if they don't want that kind of thing to happen to them.
Well New Labour gave us sweet FA too in terms of transport investment. Both HS2 and Crossrail started under their watch as well. Money lavished on the south east and London.
Government net support for bus travel in England outside London in real terms (2020/21 prices) rose from £1.02bn in 1996/97 to £1.89bn in 2009/10. By 2019/20 it had fallen back to £1.35bn. So Tory governments = "massive bus cuts" outside of London. Yet these areas keep voting Tory. Data from www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/bus05-subsidies-and-concessions; BUS0502, tab BUS0502b.
That's because most people outside London (and perhaps a few other big cities) never use buses.
Because there aren't any busses.
Nah. There are plenty of buses where I live. There's also a direct train from 5 minutes walk from my front door to 5 minutes walk from my wife's workplace - and it's still better to drive.
Serious question, why is it better to drive.
What's the train journey time and frequency of service?
I suspect I know the answer but it's best to have it confirmed.
2 tph in the peak but not every 30 minutes, 1 tph off-peak. Takes about 20 minutes.
Buses are about every 5 minutes but obviously much slower, journey time up to an hour in the peak.
Thought it would be - that's the typical story of too slow compared to driving (bus) and a too infrequent train service...
Even if there was a train every 15 minutes it would still be better to drive. Cheaper, for one thing.
That's a function of the way you pay for driving.
You pay a huge upfront cost to have a car, and several large costs each year to continue to own one - but once you do that, the costs per mile are pretty low. Whereas the costs to you personally of having public transport available are very low, but the costs per mile of making a journey are high.
If this is seen as a problem there are solutions, but they require more of a remodelling of behaviours than most people are prepared to make. (Our family wouldn't need to own two cars - what a waste of assets! - if we could be reasonably sure one would be available to use when we wanted. The cost per mile could be high, but the overall cost of motoring would still be lower - but the motivation to use non-car modes when we could, like, for 800m trips to One Stop to buy milk, would be there. We'd be better off, public transport would be more viable and therefore more plentiful and therefore more attractive, the planet would be cleaner. But we'd have to stop using the boot of the car as a shed for things-without-permanent-homes.)
A couple of decades ago I worked on a project for the DfT. I developed the road routing portion of their transport portal. The basic idea being you would put in origin and destination and it would give you a route for road, rail and bus to get there. The idea being when people used it and saw how much cheaper and convenient public transport was that they would get out of their cars.
They ended up loading all sorts of costs such as cost of car, wear and tear, insurance onto the road costing. As I remember cost of car was calculated for example as average price paid for a new car/ average number of miles expected in a cars lifetime.
85% of the time it was still cheaper and quicker to go by car than public transport. This number rapidly increasing as you added car occupants. As I remember we calculated put car passengers to 2 and it was literally 5% of journeys that were cheaper by public transport still.
There is no way that travelling by train is cheaper than driving by car. However, the question is do I wish to spend 5 hours driving to London or 2 hours working on a train.
Comments
It depends on Labour providing a responsible economic programme
Downing Street AIUI they were pretty much all in the office, so demanding they all went home to have a leaving drink over Zoom would have been ridiculous and (AFAIK) the problem according to the Met is not that there was a leaving drink but that there were (after the PM had left) many.
As my father's ex colleagues will tell you, they weren't even allowed to have a Christmas lunch/party together on Christmas (day) 2020 because that was against the laws/regulations Boris Johnson handed down.
If hospital staff weren't allowed to do things like then it shouldn't have been happening in Downing Street either.
So no biggie
They actually tried to frame a sitting member of the cabinet.
Unlike Mrs Thatcher...
When combined with falling birthrates, this poses a fundamental problem for ageing democracies. There are ever greater numbers of (voting) retirees being supported by a diminishing number of people of working age.
Whether people have "saved" or not, is somewhat beside the point. The needs of the non-workers must be met out of the economic output of the workers - the only question is whether it is done via ownership of companies (saving) or via the taxation of workers' output.
And there's another side to this. Not only do workers need to hand over more of their paychecks, but more and more workers need to be diverted from other jobs into ones where they look after the elderly. Combined with a sub-replacement birthrate, this means that the number of people working in productive (and export oriented) industries is structurally declining.
Governments that choose to pick the pockets of the most productive workers, will see said workers depart for places where demographics mean the tax environment is less malign. (A new brain drain.)
Governments that choose to reduce benefits to the elderly will get slaughtered at the ballot box.
It's pretty ugly.
Their official website says they are fibbing.
It would be great to see a party saying to end the generational unfairness by paring back the unfunded welfare state, but none of the opposition parties are suggesting that.
Do you advise him to go in hard again on parties and possibly help downfall of Johnson?
Or, tell him to talk about cost of living in the hope that he will face the now unpopular Johnson in 2024 GE.
Ultimately his judges are first Tory MPs and then the public, who will also hopefully judge the Tory MPs harshly for not holding the PM to account.
The solution is to maintain the real value of the state pension, but use other mechanisms (tax, NI etc.) to raise money from those pensioners who have extra income and can afford to pay more. Progressive taxation, in other words.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61563153
Starmer will go in hard...
The full state pension buys a bottle of champagne daily. So it helps.
Both rich topics for Starmer to get his teeth into, but personally suspect the parties line builds a broader coalition for Starmer. That's the topic which has put him ahead in the polls.
He was not removed as PM before the 1974 general elections, only when he refused to go after having lost them and tried to stay as Leader of the Opposition
The upgraded defence system, using the ASTER 30 Block 1 missile previously used only in French and Italian land systems, will help UK forces combat the increasing threats posed by anti-ship ballistic missiles at sea by developing the missile into a maritime variant.
The Ministry of Defence has placed an initial contract for this work with MBDA which, when delivered, will be worth more than £300 million and support more than 100 jobs across the UK - including highly skilled technology roles in areas such as system design and software engineering in Stevenage, Cowes, Bristol and Bolton.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/type-45-ballistic-missile-defence-upgrade-to-support-more-than-100-uk-jobs
Also if you're Starmer you'd probably rather people forget about your own performance on covid.
They will try to ensure that doesn't happen again.
Seems odd that he called an election he didn't need to and blew a perfectly good majority but the Tories allowed him to have another bite at the cherry in the October 74 election?
TMay and the DUP say Howdy!
Tory MPs weren't used to ousting and electing leaders at that point, there was an expectation that the magic circle would do the ousting.
The coming demographic timebomb and the issue about the unaffordability of pensions when boomers retired was well known and well discussed many decades ago, but it wasn't resolved at the time. When working they neither saved for, nor paid for, their own retirement despite knowing that the timebomb was coming nothing was done to diffuse it.
While we knew decades ago that there was a coming timebomb, what was little expected or discussed was that rather than fix matters they'd be made even worse by the generation that never saved for their own retirement instead using their voting power to further and further burden the young, and further and further extract more welfare for themselves.
Today's earners are expected to fund the unfunded pension of the obligations of the past, plus save for their own pensions in the future, plus pay other taxes like the young person's graduate tax (the misnamed Student Loan) etc that were never paid by prior generations, plus have higher levels of NI than the past, all while pensioners face lower levels of income tax on their pensions than in the past.
Never has one generation stolen so much from another generation before. Rectifying that would not be in the least bit unfair.
They didn't, they made it tomorrow's problem. They knew the demographic issues were coming and chose not to do anything about it while working. Rectifying that now is not unfair.
https://ojp.nationalrail.co.uk/service/ldbboard/dep/WEA?sip=11
Have you been trying to divide both sides of an equation by zero and proving that way they are the same?
Most of the welfare state now is absorbed by pensioners, and none of it was saved for.
Of course all money is taxed many times over all the time, but there's no reason to exempt those with the broadest shoulders, who get the most welfare too, from paying for the welfare they're receiving.
Sorry, but feeling a bit sensitive on that (literally, after treatment for a painful decay and further attention yesterday).
Anyone know when the Sue Grey report is out?
I have never understood why someone would live to old age somewhere there isn't public transport. However much you like living in the sticks, it makes sense to move to a town after you retire with good access to services, transport etc. At some point you may be unable to drive and need to maintain an independent life.
They ended up loading all sorts of costs such as cost of car, wear and tear, insurance onto the road costing. As I remember cost of car was calculated for example as average price paid for a new car/ average number of miles expected in a cars lifetime.
85% of the time it was still cheaper and quicker to go by car than public transport. This number rapidly increasing as you added car occupants. As I remember we calculated put car passengers to 2 and it was literally 5% of journeys that were cheaper by public transport still.
From the autumn, we should be able to go from Stratford straight through to Paddington (low level), and change there for Heathrow. Abbey Wood trains will go westward to Heathrow and Reading, so at least it'll be the same platform!
Only NEXT YEAR will it be possible to do Stratford to Heathrow direct (and Reading presumably).
A devastating interview would be incredible content, but I've never seen him be able to pull that off.
Simply shouting at people without reply might get likes on Twitter though. It certainly seems to suit the way Twitter operates, so I can see why our resident Retweeter likes it.