One big difference in housing today is the political demand and supply for restrictions on new housing. That doesn't seem to have been as popular or permissible a political position in the past.
A big difference, I think, is that housing was a massively important issue to both Conservative and Labour parties, from the 1920's to the 1980's, which exercised a lot of the best minds in those parties, and then somehow, it fell off the radar.
One really interesting (and very obscure) book I've read, Piers Wauchope's history of Camden Council, illustrates this. When it was formed, in 1964, Camden was dominated by St. Pancras councillors, who were old left, and obsessed with housing. By the 1980's it was dominated by the new left, based in Hampstead, whose principal concerns were nuclear disarmament, anti-apartheid, and overseas aid.
I think housing is still important, but the importance is about preserving its value and environment rather than in supplying more. Back then people saw slum housing as a grave public health problem, but in retrospect it looks like the housing quality was not the cause of challenging lifestyles among some very low-income people.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I think, just as comparing footballers from the sixties with current players is pointless, it’s pointless comparing life in the sixties with now in terms of ‘ease’. I think buying a home was easier, and often/usually on one salary too. My MinL cannot understand why her youngest daughter paid childcare to go back to work to pay for childcare. Different attitudes to careers I guess. But the MinL would also point out that they never went on holiday. Never. Not once. Couldn’t afford it. Different times, different priorities. Things is pretty tough for the young right now, yet it’s also amazing. Mobile phone in your pocket that connects you to the world. You can dial a friend half way across the planet and video call them. Healthcare is vastly improved, although we forget this. Now, 50% off those diagnosed with cancer are alive 10 years later. In the sixties, you were pretty much getting palliative care.
One big difference in housing today is the political demand and supply for restrictions on new housing. That doesn't seem to have been as popular or permissible a political position in the past.
A big difference, I think, is that housing was a massively important issue to both Conservative and Labour parties, from the 1920's to the 1980's, which exercised a lot of the best minds in those parties, and then somehow, it fell off the radar.
One really interesting (and very obscure) book I've read, Piers Wauchope's history of Camden Council, illustrates this. When it was formed, in 1964, Camden was dominated by St. Pancras councillors, who were old left, and obsessed with housing. By the 1980's it was dominated by the new left, based in Hampstead, whose principal concerns were nuclear disarmament, anti-apartheid, and overseas aid.
The years John Major spent as Chair of Housing in Lambeth ('68 to '71?) were one of the big reasons Huntington Conservatives were keen to have him as their candidate in 1979.
Gilt yields continuing to creep back up after the BoE’s special monetary operation.
Uk 10 year currently 4.2%
Are we in the eye of the storm?
To put that in to perspective the UK had borrowing costs for long term debt well above 12% in the 1970s. The country was often borrowing money at near 15% at a fixed rate. I think 14.5% was the highest coupon offered on very long dated government debt.
4% interest would have been considered laughably low, for most of my lifetime.
There’s a great quote from Walter Bagehot, an editor of the economist in the 19th century;
‘John Bull can stand many things, but he cannot stand two percent.’
It’s a fairly simple explanation of asset bubbles and investment manias, as investors react to low interest rates by reaching for impossible yield.
Very low interest rates turn sane men mad.
I’m reading Edward Chancellors book, right now.
The Forsyte Saga is filled with references to 2% Consols. There was a lengthy period of deflation, from 1873 to 1914, so 2% , in an era of low income tax, was an excellent return.
The preventable death of the Scottish Tories - Ruth Davidson gave them a chance. Her successors blew it
What she failed to do was make the Scottish Tories a viable party of government (a tall order at the best of times) and now the gains she made look set to be reversed.
On these numbers, the Tories would face another 1997-style Scottish wipeout. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YouGov’s 12 per cent would represent the worst ever result for the party or any of its predecessors.
Showing the part-time referee a red card would salve the frustrations of many a rank-and-file Scottish Tory but the uncomfortable truth is that the talent pool for replacing him is shallow.
Six years as the principal opposition party and they have almost nothing to show for it.
One big difference in housing today is the political demand and supply for restrictions on new housing. That doesn't seem to have been as popular or permissible a political position in the past.
A big difference, I think, is that housing was a massively important issue to both Conservative and Labour parties, from the 1920's to the 1980's, which exercised a lot of the best minds in those parties, and then somehow, it fell off the radar.
One really interesting (and very obscure) book I've read, Piers Wauchope's history of Camden Council, illustrates this. When it was formed, in 1964, Camden was dominated by St. Pancras councillors, who were old left, and obsessed with housing. By the 1980's it was dominated by the new left, based in Hampstead, whose principal concerns were nuclear disarmament, anti-apartheid, and overseas aid.
The years John Major spent as Chair of Housing in Lambeth ('68 to '71?) were one of the big reasons Huntington Conservatives were keen to have him as their candidate in 1979.
By all accounts, John Major was outstanding in that role. My father was Chairman of Housing in Barnet, from 1977 to 1982, and it was considered one of the most important jobs.
The calculations for the liabilities of a defined benefit scheme are simple (ok they aremt simple but in the context of the world of finance they are simple). Companies preffered doing stock buy backs, issuing dividends and massivley increasing executive pay over investing in their pension schemes to cover the entirely predictable future liabilities.
That various companies took payment holidays in the 1990s and now whine about their liabilties is nauseatingly outrageous. The people who advised them it would be fine should be shot.
They took payment holidays because, if they didn't, the tax man would have said they are using the pension fund to squirrel away profits and evade Corporation Tax. It was completely barmy, but that was what happened.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I agree. When I graduated I was the only one of my housemates to have a job secured on the milk round. Things were dire for graduates in 1987. Doing comp sci helped of course.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I think, just as comparing footballers from the sixties with current players is pointless, it’s pointless comparing life in the sixties with now in terms of ‘ease’. I think buying a home was easier, and often/usually on one salary too. My MinL cannot understand why her youngest daughter paid childcare to go back to work to pay for childcare. Different attitudes to careers I guess. But the MinL would also point out that they never went on holiday. Never. Not once. Couldn’t afford it. Different times, different priorities. Things is pretty tough for the young right now, yet it’s also amazing. Mobile phone in your pocket that connects you to the world. You can dial a friend half way across the planet and video call them. Healthcare is vastly improved, although we forget this. Now, 50% off those diagnosed with cancer are alive 10 years later. In the sixties, you were pretty much getting palliative care.
This kind of thinking is why it is hard for people to accept that housing access has not also got 200% better or whatever. Some of it is about pursuing scarcity, and some is about lower interest rates and inflation, and some is about political restrictions.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Rings of Power update ***Spoiler alert considering I am the only one on earth watching it.
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked. Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
My friend's son has been taken on as an editor for it.
The preventable death of the Scottish Tories - Ruth Davidson gave them a chance. Her successors blew it
What she failed to do was make the Scottish Tories a viable party of government (a tall order at the best of times) and now the gains she made look set to be reversed.
On these numbers, the Tories would face another 1997-style Scottish wipeout. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YouGov’s 12 per cent would represent the worst ever result for the party or any of its predecessors.
Showing the part-time referee a red card would salve the frustrations of many a rank-and-file Scottish Tory but the uncomfortable truth is that the talent pool for replacing him is shallow.
Six years as the principal opposition party and they have almost nothing to show for it.
How on earth did we end up with this Nicola Sturgeon and JK Rowling situation? Mindboggling.
I don't think she has any political ambitions, but JK Rowling has exactly the kind of platform and public profile that you'd need for it to be plausible.
The calculations for the liabilities of a defined benefit scheme are simple (ok they aremt simple but in the context of the world of finance they are simple). Companies preffered doing stock buy backs, issuing dividends and massivley increasing executive pay over investing in their pension schemes to cover the entirely predictable future liabilities.
That various companies took payment holidays in the 1990s and now whine about their liabilties is nauseatingly outrageous. The people who advised them it would be fine should be shot.
They took payment holidays because, if they didn't, the tax man would have said they are using the pension fund to squirrel away profits and evade Corporation Tax. It was completely barmy, but that was what happened.
Do you have a link to any reporting on that? I've read a bunch on the 1990s pension holidays and never seen that mentioned.
It's weird because many companies went and skimmed the "surplus" from schemes in the '90s and paid it out as dividends or as declared profits.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are ludicrous Max.
You effectively want companies to rob their employees of benefits said employees have already earned, under the terms of their employment contracts, because the companies made a bad choice.
How about you give back 20% of your earnings to date to help fund the future?
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
Absolutely the finest post in this conversation - I wish I had thought to say it.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
With all due respect, there is a necessity to have a functional rental market, because there are clearly circumstances where it is better to rent than to own.
What we don't want is the tail (rentals) to wag the property market dog.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Sure, and in 1991, a lot of those 18-34 year olds were sitting on a net liability, and/or getting repossessed. It was not a happy time.
Looking at your primary residence as an investment rather than a place to live is a disease that has plagued successive generations. I often wonder if housing costs were low (and people had more disposable income, as well as more money to invest in, say, productive, revenue-generating, people employing businesses) how much more successful our economy would be.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Tory-controlled East Riding of Yorkshire council has voted overwhelmingly to approve a motion opposing fracking. The area has some of the biggest shale gas reserves in the UK. Voting figures: FOR: 49 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 6
In 2018, pension liabilities of central and local government comprised:
£4.8 trillion of state pension entitlements (224% of 2018 gross domestic product (GDP)) unfunded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees estimated at £1.2 trillion (55% of GDP) funded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees worth £413 billion (19% of GDP)
Tory-controlled East Riding of Yorkshire council has voted overwhelmingly to approve a motion opposing fracking. The area has some of the biggest shale gas reserves in the UK. Voting figures: FOR: 49 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 6
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
They are truly dreadful figures. These things tend to take on a momentum of their own. All bad news is the government's fault (and there'll be plenty of it). Good news ignored. Happened to Major and Brown.
Also, hard to fix as changing leader may not resolve the issue.
War with Russia would fix it. Then once the strategic nukes started flying - which would be within about a week, max - there'd be no country left and survivors wouldn't be answering pollsters or voting. There's practically no opposition on the pro-Zelensky foreign policy.
The kind of person who flies the Ukrainian flag from their house is the type who would have voted for Trump. Practically every property I see flying the blue and yellow right now is also flying the Butcher's Apron. We've got all Trump and no Hillary Clinton. What a wonderful time to be alive...
We haven't even got a Joe Biden. Could you imagine Sir Keir Starmer telling Liz Truss she's the worst f*cking PM in British history? He wouldn't have the guts.
He'd use far more lawyer- like language!
True. But Biden is also a lawyer and that didn't stop him from speaking for the country in USPE2020 and giving Trump a public going over. However, he hasn't practiced law for a long time as far as I am aware, so it may be out of his blood. Starmer reached high office in the legal profession and has it written all over him. Perhaps he's good in committee. He seems good enough to win a GE against Truss if one were held tomorrow, but I don't agree that a Labour majority in the next real GE is at 0.9 and that Canada is likely. What is likely is war. The crazies have taken over the asylum. Scrapping the top rate of income tax is as batsh*t as building a wall along the Mexican border, maybe even more batsh*t. Starmer is not oppositional on foreign policy. He'd back Truss as the mushroom clouds rose and we all had to bend down and kiss our butts goodbye.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
With all due respect, there is a necessity to have a functional rental market, because there are clearly circumstances where it is better to rent than to own.
What we don't want is the tail (rentals) to wag the property market dog.
Note I said existing property, have tax free routes for people to build new property and rent it out.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
Really? That surprises me a bit, I thought of you as having generally quite liberal tendencies (your fanatical devotion to the SNP apart).
Er, the Scots are quite good at irony.
I know, they keep voting for one set of rabid nationalists while slagging off another!
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
A mixture of very sensible and totally awful in your list of proposals:
Rental income should be taxed at least as highly as earned income.
Reduced student fees - yes.
DB pensions we have discussed to death - let the market decide.
Forced DC contributions, rather Statist.
Increase minimum wage - absolutely!
Lifetime cap on healthcare costs - positively evil!
Ditto diabetes treatment.
Pension taper - messy, progressive income tax is the way to go.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax - yes.
CT - yes.
Education - yes.
Missing from your list: Switch away from income taxes towards wealth taxes.
In 2018, pension liabilities of central and local government comprised:
£4.8 trillion of state pension entitlements (224% of 2018 gross domestic product (GDP)) unfunded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees estimated at £1.2 trillion (55% of GDP) funded defined benefit workplace pension entitlements for public sector employees worth £413 billion (19% of GDP)
cheer up lads, it's only 1/4 of the state pension
While I do need to go do some work, it is also worth remembering that some companies and even public sector bodies have prudently managed Defined Benefits schemes. Others have been treated (by private equity owners or lazy local councils) as a pot that could be dipped into. (Or, more accurately, owners and managers thought it best to let whoever followed them worry about them.)
The preventable death of the Scottish Tories - Ruth Davidson gave them a chance. Her successors blew it
What she failed to do was make the Scottish Tories a viable party of government (a tall order at the best of times) and now the gains she made look set to be reversed.
On these numbers, the Tories would face another 1997-style Scottish wipeout. Indeed, as far as I can tell, YouGov’s 12 per cent would represent the worst ever result for the party or any of its predecessors.
Showing the part-time referee a red card would salve the frustrations of many a rank-and-file Scottish Tory but the uncomfortable truth is that the talent pool for replacing him is shallow.
Six years as the principal opposition party and they have almost nothing to show for it.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Really? That surprises me a bit, I thought of you as having generally quite liberal tendencies (your fanatical devotion to the SNP apart).
Er, the Scots are quite good at irony.
I know, they keep voting for one set of rabid nationalists while slagging off another!
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
Tory-controlled East Riding of Yorkshire council has voted overwhelmingly to approve a motion opposing fracking. The area has some of the biggest shale gas reserves in the UK. Voting figures: FOR: 49 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 6
No no no. Remember that the Business Secretary rightly and adroitly observed that anyone against fracking is a Putin apologist. So East Yarkshire council must be run by Labour.
Tory-controlled East Riding of Yorkshire council has voted overwhelmingly to approve a motion opposing fracking. The area has some of the biggest shale gas reserves in the UK. Voting figures: FOR: 49 AGAINST: 0 ABSTENTIONS: 6
It's like that Tory MP in Norfolk or wherever who was vehemently opposed to solar farms in her area despite it being a prime site (big skies, decent sun hours etc). Absolutely prime anti-growth coalition, and I for one hope Liz cracks down on these people.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
It would be playing silly buggers and many members would feel in their bigoted racist minds that they were being stitched up. If the MPs chose Sunak, they would feel they were having a non-white leader forced on them by woke-faced pinko smartarses who had eaten in too many fancy London restaurants. The MPs in their own interests should stitch the members up to their faces and tell them they can do one. Just have a coronation and let the members sob into their G&Ts, and if they don't like it to f*** right off. Tell them Toryism is the law of the jungle and they can whimper about it the next time they get flagellated.
Really? That surprises me a bit, I thought of you as having generally quite liberal tendencies (your fanatical devotion to the SNP apart).
Er, the Scots are quite good at irony.
I know, they keep voting for one set of rabid nationalists while slagging off another!
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are ludicrous Max.
You effectively want companies to rob their employees of benefits said employees have already earned, under the terms of their employment contracts, because the companies made a bad choice.
How about you give back 20% of your earnings to date to help fund the future?
Yes, let's hit working people, over and over again, let's make sure that British companies are all run into the ground so they can keep impossible promises made by people who wanted to help themselves and their mates long after they've left said companies and left behind a mess for everyone else to deal with.
Let's not bother facing up to the reality of the situation that the nation is facing a huge, huge deficit because of DB pension liabilities over the next 20-40 years because of these unaffordable promises that were made when people only lived for 10-15 years after retiring, not 20 (or 30 for early retirees).
You want to take an easy way out where those promises made to your generation are kept and working people take the hit. That will lead to a long term tanking of the economy and while you won't be around to see it, my kids will be and so will their kids.
So sure let's just all continue to bury our heads in the sand and just hope that the problem goes away and somehow our companies won't become zombie entities with pensions attached or the state won't become the NHS and pensions with a nation attached.
Working people across the board have already been asked to make the sacrifice and DB pensions don't exist because they aren't affordable. They never were. We face up to it and don't end up in a country where opportunity is sucked out to pay for those unaffordable commitments or we make those commitments affordable and some people lose out.
And just in case you don't remember, I was actively against the proposed cut in the additional rate, in fact I suggested bringing the threshold down to £100k which would result in a higher tax bill.
Rings of Power update ***Spoiler alert considering I am the only one on earth watching it.
And I’m loving it. Storyboarding, dialogue, acting all very good.
I wasn’t so keen with episode 5 as it got a bit melodramatic, though the idea of Ilúvatar creating Mithras from a silmaril I liked. Episode 6 I felt had too much action, too fast paced in moving Story on so much, though Galadriel interrogating Adar was a standout moment in the series, as was Adar killing Sauron because Sauron didn’t care for the Orcs enough a great idea. But the episode squeezed in the creation of Mount Doom as the BIG plot twist.
My friend's son has been taken on as an editor for it.
Splendid. And undoubtedly timed to coincide with the midterms to give the dems a little bump.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
A mixture of very sensible and totally awful in your list of proposals:
Rental income should be taxed at least as highly as earned income.
Reduced student fees - yes.
DB pensions we have discussed to death - let the market decide.
Forced DC contributions, rather Statist.
Increase minimum wage - absolutely!
Lifetime cap on healthcare costs - positively evil!
Ditto diabetes treatment.
Pension taper - messy, progressive income tax is the way to go.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax - yes.
CT - yes.
Education - yes.
Missing from your list: Switch away from income taxes towards wealth taxes.
Also, until the link between NI and the state pension is broken, there is a contractual element in providing the state pension. (Though Max is at least consistent in wanting to [edit] abolish it for the well off, it's not really on as it will just be an excuse for the wealthy to weasel out of paying NI until the national insurance/income tax division is abolished or at least reformed, with which I sympathise considerably.)
Also - staff HMRC properly, and abolish the interest, dividend and rental allowances for income tax, which favour the well off pensioners unduly.
Really? That surprises me a bit, I thought of you as having generally quite liberal tendencies (your fanatical devotion to the SNP apart).
Er, the Scots are quite good at irony.
I know, they keep voting for one set of rabid nationalists while slagging off another!
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
Splendid. And undoubtedly timed to coincide with the midterms to give the dems a little bump.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
My impression is that most Victorians were out of their heads on drugs, most of the time.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
It would be playing silly buggers and many members would feel in their bigoted racist minds that they were being stitched up. If the MPs chose Sunak, they would feel they were having a non-white leader forced on them by woke-faced pinko smartarses who had eaten in too many fancy London restaurants. The MPs in their own interests should stitch the members up to their faces and tell them they can do one. Just have a coronation and let the members sob into their G&Ts, and if they don't like it to f*** right off. Tell them Toryism is the law of the jungle and they can whimper about it the next time they get flagellated.
The idea that racism is what elected Truss is ludicrous given every Tory membership poll showed Badenoch comfortably beating Truss as well as Sunak had she got to the last 2.
The current darling of the Tory conference is Suella Braverman, who is again non white
Splendid. And undoubtedly timed to coincide with the midterms to give the dems a little bump.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
Bearing in mind that I think Biden is useless he and his team have managed to time a set of policy wins and announcements really quite well for the mid-terms to give the Dems the best possible chance despite how much of a drag he is on the Dems chances.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
Give everyone a vote in the election process when the governing party changes leader?
Best solution: elect the new PM in a multi-round vote among MPs of all parties. If they can't pick a leader of the country, what is the point of having MPs?
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
Before thinking about going after pension contracts, the more obvious low-hanging fruit to help intergenerational fairness is to merge income tax with NI so that there is a level playing field.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
In 1991 35% of 16-24 year olds owned a home 25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
Sure, and in 1991, a lot of those 18-34 year olds were sitting on a net liability, and/or getting repossessed. It was not a happy time.
Looking at your primary residence as an investment rather than a place to live is a disease that has plagued successive generations. I often wonder if housing costs were low (and people had more disposable income, as well as more money to invest in, say, productive, revenue-generating, people employing businesses) how much more successful our economy would be.
In our universe, people had more disposable income, and spent it on... competing for housing. It turns out that there are only so many consumer goods and experiences that beat residential amenity.
The kicker is that almost no-one is in Federal jail _just_ on a marijuana possession alone. It's bundled in with other charges. So this isn't going to free a mass of people unless the state governors join in.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
It would be playing silly buggers and many members would feel in their bigoted racist minds that they were being stitched up. If the MPs chose Sunak, they would feel they were having a non-white leader forced on them by woke-faced pinko smartarses who had eaten in too many fancy London restaurants. The MPs in their own interests should stitch the members up to their faces and tell them they can do one. Just have a coronation and let the members sob into their G&Ts, and if they don't like it to f*** right off. Tell them Toryism is the law of the jungle and they can whimper about it the next time they get flagellated.
I do find ... quaint, the idea that is expressed on this forum, that Conservative MPs are somehow, the repositery of some kind of eternal wisdom, and it's the stupid, bigoted, members who foist leaders they don't want upon them.
The Parliamentary Conservative Party has proved time and again, over the past twenty years, that it is a sack of shit . They are the ones who have decided that Sunak and Truss, Johnson and Hunt, and May and Leadsom are the best they have to offer.
I think whoever wins the next election will have to grasp the nettle of DB pensions. It will be unpopular among those who believe they "have worked hard all their lives" but then again we can't bankrupt the nation to pander to a small group of already pretty well of people. Just as the WASPI women felt hard done by because a historical wrong was righted, DB pensioners will also feel hard done by because the government and industry made promises they couldn't keep 40 years ago on retirement income.
The next party in power will need to close all DB pension schemes and come up with a fairish formula for converting existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes. Though I have no idea how that works in practice given that DB schemes are non-contributory.
Simply, neither the state nor private industry can afford to pay retirees 50-80% of their final salary until the day they die along with everything else and for industry continuing to invest in the business.
Ultimately, we need a government who is willing to tell 60+ people that things are going to be a lot more difficult and they'll need to work to 70+ if they want to keep their existing lifestyle because the nation can't afford to fund it.
What DB pensions are paying 80% of final salary?! And how many DB pensions are there still left? Surely most DB schemes have already closed and switched to DC.
Pensions are an issue, but shouldn't we talk about raising the pension age first?
My sister was juggling the costs of one briefly at Network Rail that paid up to 80% of final salary so they are definitely out there, I think that one is still open too.
It's not about closing the schemes, although that is also necessary, it's restating the existing ones that are due to pay out after 2030 (which gives people time to plan) into DC and all of them to DC by 2040. Existing recipients will have to take a hit.
That NR pension - it seems to be the usual 1/60 x year served x annual salary. She must be working for 48 years and/or paying in extra and/or deferring.
Why would closing DB pensions schemes be a priority for the next government?
And on what basis could the government legitimately force the conversion of "existing DB pensions to DC based on the asset levels within those DB pension schemes"?
For private companies it's entirely a matter for them. For public companies, well yes, HMG might decide it needs to close DB schemes for new entrants and stop the further accrual of DB rights but they cannot simply steal away the rights already accrued.
Because DB pensions are bankrupting the nation. It's an absolutely gigantic liability no one is willing to face up to yet it looms large over the economy.
Doesn't the cost of the liability depend heavily on gilt yield rates?
And higher gilt yields result in higher taxes on working age people to pay the interest bill. It is another form of transferring wealth from working age people to retirees.
I don't see how HMG could steal away DB rights already accrued. It would be theft, pure and simple.
The could legislate to close all DB schemes to new entrants and for further accruals but that's all.
How much do you think the unfunded liability is across the UK? Are there any official stats?
I think the assumption is that they probably can, if the affected groups are just picked off one by one.
It agree that it will be a very bad injustice though. I know lots of people who do extremely good work in the civil service, who have passed over more lucrative jobs in the private sector, and the opportunity of diversifying their career; because they made assumptions about the pension they would receive upon retirement.
There would be an absolutely massive fight over this. Even Cameron and Osborne didn't try it on.
Of course ultimately HMG can do whatever they legislate to do. But if you go down that road they could just steal everybody's possessions.
I have a feeling that has been tried before but ultimately the Soviet system proved not too successful.
They do, its called taxation.
The simple compromise would be to put a tax surcharge on pensions. We have NI on earnt income, yet leave pensions untouched for NI. So lets have double the current NI rate charged on pension income, triple on DB pensions.
Pensioners won't be so keen to vote through NI tax rises then anymore.
Sounding insane now, Bart. Why so aggrieved by DB pensions?
So having a tax on people who work for a living is rational, but having a tax on people who don't is "insane"?
DB pensions are theft. It was voting yourself good future incomes but without putting to one side the contributions required to pay for it.
That today's workers are expect to pay for DB pensions of retirees, but won't get that themselves, is theft pure and simple from today's workers, by the retirees.
This is seriously batshit, barty. A DB pension is between employee and employer, it's contractual and it is just deferred salary. Nobody voted it for themselves, they contracted for it. I thought you were the number 1 fan of The Rule Of Law? Are you confusing it with the state pension?
Yes and Christmas savings fund Farepak had contractual obligations but not the money to pay for it.
Anyone on a Defined Benefit pension should get that benefit paid out in full as long as the savings they or their employer put aside in the past into their pension pot covers the liabilities. If it doesn't, they shouldn't be bailed out by the people working today who aren't getting a DB themselves.
If they were promised a DB but the money isn't there for it, then they should be told it was mis-sold to them.
Is that happening? And is the state picking up the tab? DB mainly means Civil Service, where the employer can't go bust. Pots have nothing to do with it unless the employer is insolvent, the whole point of DB is it's not pot dependent.
The Civil Service pot is empty then and the DB pensions should cease. Sorry, but those on DB pensions voted in governments that gave them contracts promising payments, but didn't set aside the money to pay for it. So there's no money left, so should be no DB.
DB should have been abolished all at once rather than closed. The basic fairness of unfunded pensions was supposed to be one generation telling the next "you fund my pension, then you'll get yours when you retire" but that deal was broken years ago.
People working today are getting taxed to fund unfunded pensions that they're not eligible. That's neither reasonable nor fair.
Everyone who was mis-sold a DB pension should feel free to be angry about it, but the pot is empty and today's workers shouldn't be picking up the tab to something they're not entitled to themselves.
Quite right too. All those millions of retired civil servants, local government workers, teachers and health workers sitting on their gold-plated pensions should be pushed into penury. Cancel their pensions! Make them use food banks! That'll show them.
Sometimes, you veer into being quite bonkers.
No one is suggesting that, what is being suggested is that the DB funds be converted to DC funds at a formula with no income guarantee. There's no doubt it will leave a lot of people feeling hard done by, but the alternative is far, far worse and the impoverishment of future generations outside of a few lucky people with very well paid jobs.
Maybe banks should have been allowed to do the same with mortgages during the last 15 years of low rates. Sorry, we didn't expect this so we're taking more cash than we contractually agreed.
Banks don't have the power of primary legislation and are able to go bankrupt should they not be able to cover their costs in which case those mortgage holders are fucked anyway.
Did you earn more or less than £150,000 last year?
Significantly more, what of it?
Just I have never seen a less attractive combination of wealth and the politics of envy.
It's not envy, it's about attempting to ensure the country doesn't go bankrupt in 20 years and companies have money to invest in, you know, jobs for my kids.
You are ludicrous Max.
You effectively want companies to rob their employees of benefits said employees have already earned, under the terms of their employment contracts, because the companies made a bad choice.
How about you give back 20% of your earnings to date to help fund the future?
Yes, let's hit working people, over and over again, let's make sure that British companies are all run into the ground so they can keep impossible promises made by people who wanted to help themselves and their mates long after they've left said companies and left behind a mess for everyone else to deal with.
Let's not bother facing up to the reality of the situation that the nation is facing a huge, huge deficit because of DB pension liabilities over the next 20-40 years because of these unaffordable promises that were made when people only lived for 10-15 years after retiring, not 20 (or 30 for early retirees).
You want to take an easy way out where those promises made to your generation are kept and working people take the hit. That will lead to a long term tanking of the economy and while you won't be around to see it, my kids will be and so will their kids.
So sure let's just all continue to bury our heads in the sand and just hope that the problem goes away and somehow our companies won't become zombie entities with pensions attached or the state won't become the NHS and pensions with a nation attached.
Working people across the board have already been asked to make the sacrifice and DB pensions don't exist because they aren't affordable. They never were. We face up to it and don't end up in a country where opportunity is sucked out to pay for those unaffordable commitments or we make those commitments affordable and some people lose out.
And just in case you don't remember, I was actively against the proposed cut in the additional rate, in fact I suggested bringing the threshold down to £100k which would result in a higher tax bill.
Ok - we're not going to agree on DB pensions but I think we do agree that all income should be taxed under the same regime. That would penalise me but it's the only right and fair thing to do.
I would also tax wealth and reduce tax on income accordingly.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
Give everyone a vote in the election process when the governing party changes leader?
Best solution: elect the new PM in a multi-round vote among MPs of all parties. If they can't pick a leader of the country, what is the point of having MPs?
Before thinking about going after pension contracts, the more obvious low-hanging fruit to help intergenerational fairness is to merge income tax with NI so that there is a level playing field.
No, NI funds should be used as originally intended, for the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and maybe some healthcare too and ring-fence for that
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
Some years back Mrs C had a look at the private medical insurance my parents had taken out. She knows about those things, and instantly spotted that the benefits provided were in inverse proportion to the risk combined with morbidity involved. For instance, there was generous provision for being in hospital for a week with an ingrown toenail, but a heart attack? Forget it. I exaggerate slightly, but that was the basic principle, and the sort of marketing going on.
Max is on his anti-pensioner rant again. But I fully support him.
What’s more, polling evidence suggests that old people don’t give a fuck. Something like 5/6 think the young just need to stop whining and eat fewer avocados.
Why isn't there a like-for-like comparison? Compare young people today with older people when they were young, not young people today with older people today.
Ok. Typical comparisons as obviously exceptions and variations across each cohort.
Todays Young - Can't afford decent housing, ever rising tax burden, student debt effectively extra tax, work til 70 with reasonable possibility of state pension being abolished by the time they can claim it. Will be poorer than their parents, may not be able to afford to raise a family and often have the indignity of returning to parental home.
Previous couple of generations whilst young. Decent housing achievable on median salaries, strong asset growth through working life, retirement in fifties or early sixties by choice not unusual, one parent often able to stay at home for years when kids young. Richer than their parents.
Worth pointing out that those couple of post war generations were pretty unique in terms of the economic development at the time. Go back one more generation and you find young who could not afford their own house - perhaps ever, with large multigenerational families all living together, more often than not in rented accommodation and with very poor pension or retirement provision.
I am not using this as an argument against what you are saying. I agree we need to rebalance. But I wonder if the last couple of generations were really just a post war boom aberration and we are now unfortunately returning to the norm.
One thing I would say - particularly with regard to single working families - is that where I think we have gone most wrong is in allowing companies to drive down wages as a means of increasing profits. This is why I like the minimum wage so much and think it should be increased significantly. The social security system since WW2 has allowed companies to pay wages below a basic living standard and effectively use the taxpayer to subsidise their wage bill. This is something that should be dealt with, most simply by increasing the minimum wage significantly. It should not be the case in the UK or the rest of Europe that companies are able to pay full time employees wages that are below a living wage and expect the taxpayer to make up the difference.
No because the fixes are available, ranging from easy to difficult -
Make owning a home cheaper and letting existing private residential property economically unviable.
Cut student fees back down to what I paid (£1k per year) and massively increase university funding.
Fix the DB pension liabilities carried by the state and private sectors.
Increase DC minimum contributions to 8% employee and 5% employer and no longer allow opting out.
Increase the minimum wage to make it enough to live on.
Put a lifetime cap on healthcare costs, ending the effective unlimited liability carried by the state.
Stop funding type diabetes treatment in full on the NHS, make prescriptions for self inflicted chronic diseases chargeable again.
State pension taper for high earning individuals (like my dad) for whom it is pin money coupled with an increase in the state pension for those people it isnt pin money so they can have a better standard of living in old age.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax.
Raising CT to 30% and having unlimited investment allowances for capital, research and development for businesses of all sizes.
Huge, huge investment in education and skills, literal doubling of the education budget so that university fees can be cut and education standards can be raised.
These are policy examples that would help to address the balance between older people and working people. Neither Labour nor the Tories have the cojones to pursue any of them.
A mixture of very sensible and totally awful in your list of proposals:
Rental income should be taxed at least as highly as earned income.
Reduced student fees - yes.
DB pensions we have discussed to death - let the market decide.
Forced DC contributions, rather Statist.
Increase minimum wage - absolutely!
Lifetime cap on healthcare costs - positively evil!
Ditto diabetes treatment.
Pension taper - messy, progressive income tax is the way to go.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax - yes.
CT - yes.
Education - yes.
Missing from your list: Switch away from income taxes towards wealth taxes.
Also, until the link between NI and the state pension is broken, there is a contractual element in providing the state pension. (Though Max is at least consistent in wanting to [edit] abolish it for the well off, it's not really on as it will just be an excuse for the wealthy to weasel out of paying NI until the national insurance/income tax division is abolished or at least reformed, with which I sympathise considerably.)
Also - staff HMRC properly, and abolish the interest, dividend and rental allowances for income tax, which favour the well off pensioners unduly.
You'd do those three together. A state pension taper, merging both forms of NI and income tax and significant raising of the state pension amount so that people who retire without any significant private income are living with dignity in retirement. Raising the minimum contributions to 13% (8% employee and 5% employer) would also be included so that the current generation of workers have got a reasonable chance of decent private income in retirement.
Ideally, the system should be a lot more generous for the bottom third, about the same in the middle and have significantly higher taxes and benefit withdrawal at for the top third.
We shouldn't have a situation where older people are having to choose between a warm room in the evening and breakfast in the morning, however that happened it's not a situation the UK should allow to continue and it wouldn't take a huge increase for many, many millions of older people to have significantly better life quality. But at the top we've got millions of pensioners continuing to accrue wealth because they have significant private income and we still give them the state pension. That has got to change.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
Really? That surprises me a bit, I thought of you as having generally quite liberal tendencies (your fanatical devotion to the SNP apart).
Er, the Scots are quite good at irony.
I know, they keep voting for one set of rabid nationalists while slagging off another!
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
Mea Culpa. Mea Maxima Culpa. I genuinely wanted rid of Brown and didn't want Milliband D so I backed Milliband E. Who I stand by having great ideas albeit ruined by being advised by wazzocks.
Then in an acutely weird time of my life I got radicalised by someone I trusted who wasn't just a Blairite, he had a thankyou note signed by George W Bush for helping organise his Sedgefield pub visit.
So I voted for Jezbollah. Then realised i had been a pillock. Its all my fault.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
Give everyone a vote in the election process when the governing party changes leader?
Best solution: elect the new PM in a multi-round vote among MPs of all parties. If they can't pick a leader of the country, what is the point of having MPs?
There's some logic in that.
Not really. Wouldn't the Opposition just vote en masse for the most unsuitable candidate amongst the majority Party contenders? We might end up with a Liz Truss as PM that way.
How about this for a compromise on the Leadership rules that the Conservative Party could probably get through.
1) Same as currently to choose Final 2.
2) MPs and members then vote separately on Final 2 and the result is a 50:50 Electoral College.
In recent election, Truss won members 57-43. So for Sunak to have won overall, he would have needed to win the MPs by more than 57-43.
Seems a fair compromise. Members still play a major role. But if MPs want Candidate X by whatever margin, then members must want Candidate Y by a bigger margin for member choice to prevail.
Con Party needs to make this change now - and I suspect they could get it through.
It would be playing silly buggers and many members would feel in their bigoted racist minds that they were being stitched up. If the MPs chose Sunak, they would feel they were having a non-white leader forced on them by woke-faced pinko smartarses who had eaten in too many fancy London restaurants. The MPs in their own interests should stitch the members up to their faces and tell them they can do one. Just have a coronation and let the members sob into their G&Ts, and if they don't like it to f*** right off. Tell them Toryism is the law of the jungle and they can whimper about it the next time they get flagellated.
I do find ... quaint, the idea that is expressed on this forum, that Conservative MPs are somehow, the repositery of some kind of eternal wisdom, and it's the stupid, bigoted, members who foist leaders they don't want upon them.
The Parliamentary Conservative Party has proved time and again, over the past twenty years, that it is a sack of shit . They are the ones who have decided that Sunak and Truss, Johnson and Hunt, and May and Leadsom are the best they have to offer.
How we missed the Suella Braverman, Matt Hancock and Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox premierships is beyond me?
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
Some years back Mrs C had a look at the private medical insurance my parents had taken out. She knows about those things, and instantly spotted that the benefits provided were in inverse proportion to the risk combined with morbidity involved. For instance, there was generous provision for being in hospital for a week with an ingrown toenail, but a heart attack? Forget it. I exaggerate slightly, but that was the basic principle, and the sort of marketing going on.
Anything life threatening and you're in the NHS anyway.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
You will be gratified to know that I have, coincidentally, discovered in my current history book that in the 1860s or so, they used to bang people up in Dartmoor for life for 'bestiality with an ass', and also 'indecent behaviour with a she-ass'. The authors did wonder what the difference was, but showed a deplorable degree of focus on their main topic by refusing to dive down that particular diverticulum.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
Some years back Mrs C had a look at the private medical insurance my parents had taken out. She knows about those things, and instantly spotted that the benefits provided were in inverse proportion to the risk combined with morbidity involved. For instance, there was generous provision for being in hospital for a week with an ingrown toenail, but a heart attack? Forget it. I exaggerate slightly, but that was the basic principle, and the sort of marketing going on.
Anything life threatening and you're in the NHS anyway.
Anything chronic and agonising and you are fucked.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
Splendid. And undoubtedly timed to coincide with the midterms to give the dems a little bump.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
My impression is that most Victorians were out of their heads on drugs, most of the time.
Sherlock Holmes was a regular (fictional) user, but what surprised me is it wasn't a quick toot or even a refreshing glass of vin mariani, but rather the way in which he gets out a syringe, rolls up his sleeve (where numerous trackmarks are described), and shoots up, calm as you like, in the presence of Dr Watson. Suggesting at the very least such a practice was relatively normal at the time.
I believe it was Noel Gallagher who said that taking drugs was as normal as having a cup of tea. If he'd been a Victorian, he'd probably have been right.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
KT?
Kamikaze / Truss
Ah, now it makes sense.
Conservative Party wiped out by the K-T extinction event.
Before thinking about going after pension contracts, the more obvious low-hanging fruit to help intergenerational fairness is to merge income tax with NI so that there is a level playing field.
Yep. Agree completely.
Also, what people like Bart miss when they go after pensions is that successive attacks on pensions have already made them far less attractive to people. And the answer is? Property of course. So, the reduction in return on pensions over the years has helped drive the increase in house prices because more and more people see them as an investment to replace lost pension value.
In his way Bart is as bad as the communists. They come up with these plans which looks great on paper and then can't for the life of them figure out why they don't work in real life. The answer of course is human nature. People - individuals - will behave in the way that they perceive is best for them and their own. and every time you come up with a cunning plan to force them down one route they will quickly find a way to divert back to where they want to be going.
I think the 1922 committee have the right to alter the rules and if they felt they had enough support, they could either (a) suspend or abolish the right of party members to have the final say, or (b) require a very high number of MPs to nominate someone in order for them to go through to the first round (or alternatively to the final round).
(a) definitely not possible and I don't think they can alter the 15% rule either. Their power extends to the nuts and bolts of the election not to substance. Think of them as returning officers.
d they could choose to increase it further in later rounds. So what would stop them picking a much higher figure?
Secondly, if the committee doesn't have the power either to set a very high threshold or to suspend the membership vote entirely, who does? Would Tory MPs as a whole have the power to adopt a rule change (by what majority?) or would another body within the party have to do so? Either way it is at least conceivable that sufficient support for changing the rules could develop.
I believe it's in the party rules so the membership gets a vote.
Yes it’s in the party constitution so in order to remove the membership vote the …. Err…members have to vote to remove it.
Howard tried to remove the members vote before his resignation but the members rejected it.
Quite right too, the Conservative Party should not be the only main UK party which does not give its members any say in who is elected its leader.
MPs get to pick 2 candidates to put to the membership, if they cannot find 2 candidates they can live with then that is their fault
Old ways were better on this. But its hard to go back, as members are super entitled- as we've seen with corbynite tendencies they think they are more important than the country.
Though the current system does risk Labour, if it wins the next election and is still in power in a decade, replacing Starmer or a centrist successor like Streeting with a Corbynite candidate if that candidate wins the Labour membership, without needing to win a general election either.
The current system can therefore benefit the hard left as much as the hard right if a party is in power long enough
I have seen the idea floated of passing a law that a parliament automatically dissolves after a short period following a new PM taking office (mid-parliament).
I don't really like the idea much, it has to be said. Strikes me (like the FTPA) as creating unintended consequences - cementing a bad leader in place because MPs are scared they will have to face a GE if they move to depose them.
But I'm not sure what the solution is. I do think Truss' election has pushed the envelope compared to previous mid-parliament leadership takeovers because she has been so forceful about her view that the governments before her have been wrong on economic policy - and decided to steer the ship away from it. Perhaps she is feeling the consequences of this in the polls though. Doesn't help the country in the interim, mind.
Give everyone a vote in the election process when the governing party changes leader?
Best solution: elect the new PM in a multi-round vote among MPs of all parties. If they can't pick a leader of the country, what is the point of having MPs?
There's some logic in that.
Not really. Wouldn't the Opposition just vote en masse for the most unsuitable candidate amongst the majority Party contenders? We might end up with a Liz Truss as PM that way.
Good point.
Make it a public (not secret) MPs ballot at each round.
Splendid. And undoubtedly timed to coincide with the midterms to give the dems a little bump.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
My impression is that most Victorians were out of their heads on drugs, most of the time.
Sherlock Holmes was a regular (fictional) user, but what surprised me is it wasn't a quick toot or even a refreshing glass of vin mariani, but rather the way in which he gets out a syringe, rolls up his sleeve (where numerous trackmarks are described), and shoots up, calm as you like, in the presence of Dr Watson. Suggesting at the very least such a practice was relatively normal at the time.
I believe it was Noel Gallagher who said that taking drugs was as normal as having a cup of tea. If he'd been a Victorian, he'd probably have been right.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
You will be gratified to know that I have, coincidentally, discovered in my current history book that in the 1860s or so, they used to bang people up in Dartmoor for life for 'bestiality with an ass', and also 'indecent behaviour with a she-ass'. The authors did wonder what the difference was, but showed a deplorable degree of focus on their main topic by refusing to dive down that particular diverticulum.
I thought it was a hanging offence.
Also how did anyone ever get caught at it in pre CCTV days?
I'm reluctant to get into four Yorkshiremen territory, but I doubt if there was ever a golden age, where young people enjoyed full employment, high wages, low taxes, easy access to credit, rising house prices (but still keeping pace with wages, and a great free education.
Well, there may have been a sweet spot, from about 1985 to 2008, but that was it.
What a lot of this is about is comparing the prospects of young people from upper middle class backgrounds in the past, with the prospects of young people generally, today.
I bought my first house, a small place in a provincial city, at the grand old age of 23 back in 1987. I had saved the deposit of the 'massive' sum of £2500 because the IT company I worked for had a project in crisis and they paid overtime. I worked most Saturdays for a year or so.
The house cost £27k.
A lost world to today's up and coming generation.
I'd say you would have been most unusual, even in 1987.
Plenty of your contemporaries would have been wrestling with finding a job.
I think now you are making the mistake you point out about comparing today's problems to those of unrepresentative groups in the past.
There must be a like-for-like comparison of average housing costs out there.
I got on the housing ladder at the wrong point, discovering in 1993 that my flat was worth about 40% of what I had paid for it, two and a half years previously, with a mortgage that was about twice its value. I don't think that wsa an unusual experience among young people at that time.
Yep. Same for me a bit earlier. Bought my first house in 1988 and by the time things fell apart with my bride to be in 1989 the value had already dropped below the mortgage value. That was a nasty time on a personal level.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
Are you deliberately forgetting that the cut in basic rate is more than wiped out by the failure to raise the personal allowance in line with inflation though?
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Surely the perfect time for KT and the Fuckup Gang to (a) cut the NHS budget and (b) provide sneering responses to why all decent people should already have private insurance.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
Some years back Mrs C had a look at the private medical insurance my parents had taken out. She knows about those things, and instantly spotted that the benefits provided were in inverse proportion to the risk combined with morbidity involved. For instance, there was generous provision for being in hospital for a week with an ingrown toenail, but a heart attack? Forget it. I exaggerate slightly, but that was the basic principle, and the sort of marketing going on.
Anything life threatening and you're in the NHS anyway.
Correct. Despite anyone's wealth, if it all kicks off cardiac wise or if you crash your Porsche then it's the blue-light to the NHS Emergency Dept. We take all comers, at all hours, at all levels of sickness.
Private insurance is only useful for elective care.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
If a sensible right-winger like you has come around to this view, then the Overton window really has shifted.
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
Surely the thing about this debate about who should select Tory leader is this:
Tory Party members are mentalists.
I know that's an easy political jibe with a big dollop of truth to it, but there's a broader issue in party members choosing a leader.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
*all* parties can suffer this. However, this specific problem is that Truss is Prime Minister. Jezbollah was not PM and not close to being PM.
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
My particular beef with Labour members (or, in fairness, certain Labour members) over Corbyn is that they made Labour unelectable and foisted Johnson (and Truss) on us with a sizable Parliamentary majority. Now they sit back, all smug, and say "You see, we were right!"
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
You will be gratified to know that I have, coincidentally, discovered in my current history book that in the 1860s or so, they used to bang people up in Dartmoor for life for 'bestiality with an ass', and also 'indecent behaviour with a she-ass'. The authors did wonder what the difference was, but showed a deplorable degree of focus on their main topic by refusing to dive down that particular diverticulum.
I thought it was a hanging offence.
Also how did anyone ever get caught at it in pre CCTV days?
I'm not an expert and don't want to do an internet search (!) but suspect a lot of those were condemnation to death then - what was the word? - alleviated to life sentences. As with gay men in the early C19, but timing is important, though: it's quite possible sentencing was reduced anyway by then.
As for the latter, I dunno, but for one thing there would be far, far more people around the average farm in those days - maybe 20X?
The idea that taxes should be raised on capital, in order to be reduced on incomes is obviously sensible and fair.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
They already are, Kwarteng has kept the cut in the basic rate of income tax and the poorest don't pay any.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
There's nothing special about capital. It's there to be used.
And preserved for the next generation where possible
Comments
Different times, different priorities. Things is pretty tough for the young right now, yet it’s also amazing. Mobile phone in your pocket that connects you to the world. You can dial a friend half way across the planet and video call them.
Healthcare is vastly improved, although we forget this. Now, 50% off those diagnosed with cancer are alive 10 years later. In the sixties, you were pretty much getting palliative care.
25-34 year olds it was 66%
So not that uncommon.
Before you go looking at the report below and see what the figures where in 2016 have a guess what the numbers are.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/ukperspectives2016housingandhomeownershipintheuk/2016-05-25
It's weird because many companies went and skimmed the "surplus" from schemes in the '90s and paid it out as dividends or as declared profits.
In 1991 barely more than 50% of over 75s owned property, now over 70% do
You effectively want companies to rob their employees of benefits said employees have already earned, under the terms of their employment contracts, because the companies made a bad choice.
How about you give back 20% of your earnings to date to help fund the future?
Tory Party members are mentalists.
What we don't want is the tail (rentals) to wag the property market dog.
And the change is the 25-34 is most profound. From 66% in 1991 to 36% in 2014. Practically halved.
The generational shift is also there at the older end. In 1981 only 50% of 65-74 year olds owned a home. By 2014 it was 79%
Voting figures:
FOR: 49
AGAINST: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 6
https://twitter.com/withorpe/status/1577911864431878145?s=46&t=yj3VFqnaymBLiZyyvAzRMg
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/ageing/articles/livinglonger/changesinhousingtenureovertime#what-would-be-the-implications-of-an-increase-in-older-people-renting-privately
They are as mad as march hares.
They also have more security in old age therefore.
Under 35s now rent more but they have not voted Tory since 2010, as long as over 35s mostly still own property the Tories can still win.
It tends to favour purity over electability, extremism over unity, and making the individual, self selecting member feel good over giving the country someone who might form a stable, competent government.
I'd note Labour members chose Corbyn. Twice.
But in this case, you missed the irony of my own post. SD was quoting a Farage tweet without attribution so it sounded as though he approved the message. And I was teasing him over it.
Rental income should be taxed at least as highly as earned income.
Reduced student fees - yes.
DB pensions we have discussed to death - let the market decide.
Forced DC contributions, rather Statist.
Increase minimum wage - absolutely!
Lifetime cap on healthcare costs - positively evil!
Ditto diabetes treatment.
Pension taper - messy, progressive income tax is the way to go.
Merging of NI, employer and employee, with income tax - yes.
CT - yes.
Education - yes.
Missing from your list: Switch away from income taxes towards wealth taxes.
https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1578097875480895489?t=9nO4VTdYGmDw1CCC5GEcjw&s=19
The same truth is there for both. A party leader has to have the support of MPs. Jezza lost the majority of Labour MPs in 2016 and staggered along for another 3 years in a state of war with his own party. Truss was not selected by MPs and they are openly at war with her.
Bucks: https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1578108939828617216?t=mqbZsZyvK4O1ao9BbwaDFA&s=19
South London: https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1578088751900786695?t=8wPbgkq4N8fmq-gD18ounw&s=19
Hull: https://twitter.com/ShaunLintern/status/1578049313652998152?t=D5JgDx2YksP99tS-d7yPkQ&s=19
The common factor is large numbers of patients who cannot be discharged to Social Care. We are only just starting into autumn.
Let's not bother facing up to the reality of the situation that the nation is facing a huge, huge deficit because of DB pension liabilities over the next 20-40 years because of these unaffordable promises that were made when people only lived for 10-15 years after retiring, not 20 (or 30 for early retirees).
You want to take an easy way out where those promises made to your generation are kept and working people take the hit. That will lead to a long term tanking of the economy and while you won't be around to see it, my kids will be and so will their kids.
So sure let's just all continue to bury our heads in the sand and just hope that the problem goes away and somehow our companies won't become zombie entities with pensions attached or the state won't become the NHS and pensions with a nation attached.
Working people across the board have already been asked to make the sacrifice and DB pensions don't exist because they aren't affordable. They never were. We face up to it and don't end up in a country where opportunity is sucked out to pay for those unaffordable commitments or we make those commitments affordable and some people lose out.
And just in case you don't remember, I was actively against the proposed cut in the additional rate, in fact I suggested bringing the threshold down to £100k which would result in a higher tax bill.
Speaking of a little bump, perhaps Truss and co could emulate this strategy by legalising cocaine. It would certainly deliver on her promise to "get Britain moving" - and if Coca Cola returned to its original formula, it could even be sold to Rees-Mogg as a return to 19th century values.
Plus, it could even bring noted nose candy connoisseur Gove back on side. What's not to like?
Also - staff HMRC properly, and abolish the interest, dividend and rental allowances for income tax, which favour the well off pensioners unduly.
The current darling of the Tory conference is Suella Braverman, who is again non white
“Treasury weighs extending UK mortgage scheme to help first-time buyers
Bank bosses put forward idea at meeting with chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng“
Insane.
It is like the Seventies again, only with worse music. I do notice the young women are wearing flares again...
If they can't pick a leader of the country, what is the point of having MPs?
You weren't right, you self-indulgent donkey f***ers. You can all eat a massive slice of blame pie until you puke.
Anyway, other than that, I think they are fine and am totally over it.
Big vote winner. People die. So what. Say most right-minded people. They vote to see their granny pointlessly die.
I do find ... quaint, the idea that is expressed on this forum, that Conservative MPs are somehow, the repositery of some kind of eternal wisdom, and it's the stupid, bigoted, members who foist leaders they don't want upon them.
The Parliamentary Conservative Party has proved time and again, over the past twenty years, that it is a sack of shit . They are the ones who have decided that Sunak and Truss, Johnson and Hunt, and May and Leadsom are the best they have to offer.
I would also tax wealth and reduce tax on income accordingly.
Ideally, the system should be a lot more generous for the bottom third, about the same in the middle and have significantly higher taxes and benefit withdrawal at for the top third.
We shouldn't have a situation where older people are having to choose between a warm room in the evening and breakfast in the morning, however that happened it's not a situation the UK should allow to continue and it wouldn't take a huge increase for many, many millions of older people to have significantly better life quality. But at the top we've got millions of pensioners continuing to accrue wealth because they have significant private income and we still give them the state pension. That has got to change.
Then in an acutely weird time of my life I got radicalised by someone I trusted who wasn't just a Blairite, he had a thankyou note signed by George W Bush for helping organise his Sedgefield pub visit.
So I voted for Jezbollah. Then realised i had been a pillock. Its all my fault.
I'm 55 now, and will likely inherit a shedload of money over the next twenty years, when it is merely something that is nice to have, rather than something that is important to my life. It would be far better if younger relatives were paying less income tax.
Wouldn't the Opposition just vote en masse for the most unsuitable candidate amongst the majority Party contenders?
We might end up with a Liz Truss as PM that way.
It is high earners still paying 45% of their income at the top rate in tax. Tories by definition believe in conserving capital above all, if you prefer to raise taxes on capital and cut them on income then you are really a Liberal not a Tory.
If you want to raise taxes on capital and income then you are a Socialist
I believe it was Noel Gallagher who said that taking drugs was as normal as having a cup of tea. If he'd been a Victorian, he'd probably have been right.
Conservative Party wiped out by the K-T extinction event.
Also, what people like Bart miss when they go after pensions is that successive attacks on pensions have already made them far less attractive to people. And the answer is? Property of course. So, the reduction in return on pensions over the years has helped drive the increase in house prices because more and more people see them as an investment to replace lost pension value.
In his way Bart is as bad as the communists. They come up with these plans which looks great on paper and then can't for the life of them figure out why they don't work in real life. The answer of course is human nature. People - individuals - will behave in the way that they perceive is best for them and their own. and every time you come up with a cunning plan to force them down one route they will quickly find a way to divert back to where they want to be going.
Make it a public (not secret) MPs ballot at each round.
And also even ordinary stuff like beer was often adulterated with mindbending drugs.
Also how did anyone ever get caught at it in pre CCTV days?
Private insurance is only useful for elective care.
As for the latter, I dunno, but for one thing there would be far, far more people around the average farm in those days - maybe 20X?