The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Mm, interesting, thanks.
I can't provide figures for the differing values as all of the calculators I found online ask for personal details so they can market at you but I am sure those in the know will confirm dc pension annuities pay out less if it is index linked
Not an easy stat to find else I would supply a source but I suspect most being told you can have 5k a year or 3.5k a year index linked are going to head down the 5k route
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
Thanks for the kind words and the insults.
I really hope you find a way of channelling your anger positively - life's too short to be angry at bookshops or anonymous people on the Internet.
Bear it in mind next time you think about passing judgement on my character or accusing me of crass ignorance.
Bloody cheek.
And have a think on that pomposity as well. Your posts are full of it, and far too long.
I appreciate the comments on my posts and you're probably right but perhaps my strength is over-long pomposity while yours is clearly angry self-obsessed childish rants.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
Good grief, what is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with @Leon.
Joe Wright's 2005 Pride & Prejudice is excellent and Knightly is a perfect Elizabeth Bennett.
I sense a new, quite toxic, divide in the culture wars.
Between those who realise Jane Austen's work is shit and those who have yet to read it preoperly?
I do not believe her work is shit (far from it) so I have clearly never read it properly.
Any suggestions as to how I might improve my obviously imperfect 'start at the beginning, read to the end, enjoy as I go' technique?
It is not so much the work is shit but there is a tendency to put people on a pedestal because they are ancient. cf chaucer, shakespeare etc. They aren't bad but there are equally competent contemporaries
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
To be fair, in a country with 70% home ownership, it's hard to work out how to democratically shaft such a large majority. There are no signs Starmer will.
Starmer and labour demanded the retention of the triple lock in the HOC the week before the Autumn statement
The triple lock was introduced by Cameron and Clegg and is supported by all parties including the SNP, evidenced by Blackford demanding Sunak confirmed it at the PMQs before the Autumn statement
There is no point Labour supporters objecting to the triple lock when their leader is 100% committed to it
As far as I can tell all Labour will do is change the guard and put up tax and the Wokery even more.
It's in the Labour draft manifesto:
A new, independent Woke bookshop in every town and village throughout the land.
They will remove all the (limited) brakes the Conservatives have currently applied.
In the longer term it provides a route back for them as there will eventually be a backlash.
I guess I'm curious as to why you were so worked up about this 'woke' bookshop in your town. I thought Tories were all in favour of small businesses being set up. It may or may not fail. But you actively want it to fail, which is odd for a Tory.
Meanwhile, on the Woke scale Starmer is pretty much in the middle, I'd have thought, and I don't see the next Labour government being captured by the extreme wokeites for one minute.
I've lived here for my whole life. It's my hometown. I was excited about this new bookshop when I saw it, and then I went in - and I'm crushingly disappointed.
You don't expect to see a bit of Islington in rural Hampshire, so I can't say I wish them well, but if it isn't my cup of tea why should I go in there and support them?
I'm not trying to ban them or make them illegal. But it doesn't mean I'm rooting for them.
There’s actually only one Waterstones in Islington. It’s a bit barren on the bookshop front, and actually not especially woke.
How many approved non-Woke bookshops are there in Islington? Just checking. (I don't mean the kind of bookshop that is neutral on this front, like specialist transport shops like the one that used to be in St Martin's Lane in London. I'm assuming here trhat the trains bit cancels out the petrolheads bit, obvs.)
OK.
If they want to start a culture war in my home town I will do my best to fucking finish it.
These people need to be defeated. Woke is a cancer.
That seems not wildly different from saying that in rural Hampshire, these folk should get back in the closet. How is opening a bookshop ‘starting a culture war’ ?
Casino is going to open up a shop next door selling pickelhaubes and signed copies of the new Anne Widdecombe romance.
I accept that your views on "woke" are deeply held but I doubt 1% of the population feel as strongly about it as you do.
IIRC not so long ago you were apoplectic about an advertisement or something at Waterloo station, an advert I'm sure 99% of us walked past without giving it a second thought. I honestly could not believe anyone could get that worked up about it.
No offence, but you give the impression of of being someone who is always on the lookout for something to be offended by.
Nah, that just reflects how limited your peer group is.
I'd say between 30-40% of the population would feel the same, lots of people confide in me once they realise I'm on their side in private, and the bulk of the rest (40-45%) go along with it because they don't really think about it.
I'd say this stuff only really appeals to about 15-20% of the population (max) but they're the ones that set the agenda and call the shots.
Why does 'woke' never appear very high on the list of issues voters are most concerned about?
We used to hear similar arguments about the EU issue, as I recall.
Most people don't know what it means but awareness is growing - as this yougov polling from July shows.
Awareness shows up in the real questions on its specific derivative issues.
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
Thanks for the kind words and the insults.
I really hope you find a way of channelling your anger positively - life's too short to be angry at bookshops or anonymous people on the Internet.
Bear it in mind next time you think about passing judgement on my character or accusing me of crass ignorance.
Bloody cheek.
And have a think on that pomposity as well. Your posts are full of it, and far too long.
I appreciate the comments on my posts and you're probably right but perhaps my strength is over-long pomposity while yours is clearly angry self-obsessed childish rants.
The anger is entirely your own projection.
I make my own views know with force but I've had a very pleasant day with my family, thank you.
Your problem is you read all the threads, store up all your thoughts and emotions and then suddenly dump them on the blog when the cup overfloweth. And shotgun neg us all.
Try engaging in a more steady, measured and consistent way.
Good grief, what is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with @Leon.
Joe Wright's 2005 Pride & Prejudice is excellent and Knightly is a perfect Elizabeth Bennett.
I sense a new, quite toxic, divide in the culture wars.
Between those who realise Jane Austen's work is shit and those who have yet to read it preoperly?
I do not believe her work is shit (far from it) so I have clearly never read it properly.
Any suggestions as to how I might improve my obviously imperfect 'start at the beginning, read to the end, enjoy as I go' technique?
It is not so much the work is shit but there is a tendency to put people on a pedestal because they are ancient. cf chaucer, shakespeare etc. They aren't bad but there are equally competent contemporaries
Fair point. But the genius of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen should not be at all diminished by today's best writers.
The same is true of composers and visual artists.
One medium where I think the old 'classics' are significantly inferior to today's is film. I give as exhibit one a film often lauded as the best ever: Citizen Kane, which is in fact utter tripe and compares very poorly with today's best films.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
I don't think people will be mad at a further £50m for Ukraine. In government terms that's nothing, and it's a very worthwhile cause. It's the waste of billions that people have issue with.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Good grief, what is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with @Leon.
Joe Wright's 2005 Pride & Prejudice is excellent and Knightly is a perfect Elizabeth Bennett.
I sense a new, quite toxic, divide in the culture wars.
Between those who realise Jane Austen's work is shit and those who have yet to read it preoperly?
I do not believe her work is shit (far from it) so I have clearly never read it properly.
Any suggestions as to how I might improve my obviously imperfect 'start at the beginning, read to the end, enjoy as I go' technique?
It is not so much the work is shit but there is a tendency to put people on a pedestal because they are ancient. cf chaucer, shakespeare etc. They aren't bad but there are equally competent contemporaries
Fair point. But the genius of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen should not be at all diminished by today's best writers.
The same is true of composers and visual artists.
One medium where I think the old 'classics' are significantly inferior to today's is film. I give as exhibit one a film often lauded as the best ever: Citizen Kane, which is in fact utter tripe and compares very poorly with today's best films.
I certainly wasn't demeaning them, I like both chaucer and shakespeare. I just don't necessarily agree they are the epitome of authorship they are made out to be. Film and visual arts have the same issue. We should see all works on merit rather than value them because of age is all of my point.
Much as I dislike Tories of all shades, I am starting to feel the 'commentariat' is being a bit harsh on the current lot.
Obviously the insanity of the Truss-Kwarteng aberration was very damaging and the Tory party can't just wipe its hands of that.
But really there seems to be an assumption underlying a lot of the criticism, that things should carry on getting better and better, and we should expect to have more and more money to spend on gratifying ourselves for ever and ever.
How on earth could this crazy idea have embedded itself so deeply into people's heads?
In the West, on average, we're already living in a way that's well beyond our current means. Maybe technology can catch up to the extent of making our current lifestyle sustainable, and even bringing the great majority of the world's population up to the same level. But that's a bloody tall order.
If only all our politicians would try to teach us to be a bit more grown up in our expectations, and tell us that we shouldn't expect ourselves to be continually showered with more and more and better and better toys from the age of 9 to 99, rather than trying to buy our votes on the wholly duplicitous promise that the current (or rather recent) binge can continue for ever.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Mm, interesting, thanks.
I can't provide figures for the differing values as all of the calculators I found online ask for personal details so they can market at you but I am sure those in the know will confirm dc pension annuities pay out less if it is index linked
Not an easy stat to find else I would supply a source but I suspect most being told you can have 5k a year or 3.5k a year index linked are going to head down the 5k route
From my own circs I have a (small) chunk of defined benefit, a chunk of defined contribution, and various self-made investments.
My defined benefits is index linked at up to 3% or 5% (would need to check). The defined contribution annuity return on purchase more or less halved in the 2000s, which made me pay much more attention to the self-made investments.
Much as I dislike Tories of all shades, I am starting to feel the 'commentariat' is being a bit harsh on the current lot.
Obviously the insanity of the Truss-Kwarteng aberration was very damaging and the Tory party can't just wipe its hands of that.
But really there seems to be an assumption underlying a lot of the criticism, that things should carry on getting better and better, and we should expect to have more and more money to spend on gratifying ourselves for ever and ever.
How on earth could this crazy idea have embedded itself so deeply into people's heads?
In the West, on average, we're already living in a way that's well beyond our current means. Maybe technology can catch up to the extent of making our current lifestyle sustainable, and even bringing the great majority of the world's population up to the same level. But that's a bloody tall order.
If only all our politicians would try to teach us to be a bit more grown up in our expectations, and tell us that we shouldn't expect ourselves to be continually showered with more and more and better and better toys from the age of 9 to 99, rather than trying to buy our votes on the wholly duplicitous promise that the current (or rather recent) binge can continue for ever.
Our politicians gave up on being more grown up in expectations, as we certainly don't reward that.
It may be the Sunak goverment could do everything right - unlikely, but possible - and yet comment and opinion won't give them fair credit for that. That's what happens when you destroy your credility.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
Why does 'woke' never appear very high on the list of issues voters are most concerned about?
We used to hear similar arguments about the EU issue, as I recall.
Most people don't know what it means but awareness is growing - as this yougov polling from July shows.
Awareness shows up in the real questions on its specific derivative issues.
Most people use "woke" pejoratively, like "political correctness" so insofar as people think they know what it is, they tend to be against it if you ask them in a poll. Like sympathy for Arctic seals or dislike of Marmite, it doesn't mean they actually give the issue much thought or care enough to change their votes over it.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
To be fair, in a country with 70% home ownership, it's hard to work out how to democratically shaft such a large majority. There are no signs Starmer will.
Starmer and labour demanded the retention of the triple lock in the HOC the week before the Autumn statement
The triple lock was introduced by Cameron and Clegg and is supported by all parties including the SNP, evidenced by Blackford demanding Sunak confirmed it at the PMQs before the Autumn statement
There is no point Labour supporters objecting to the triple lock when their leader is 100% committed to it
As far as I can tell all Labour will do is change the guard and put up tax and the Wokery even more.
It's in the Labour draft manifesto:
A new, independent Woke bookshop in every town and village throughout the land.
They will remove all the (limited) brakes the Conservatives have currently applied.
In the longer term it provides a route back for them as there will eventually be a backlash.
I guess I'm curious as to why you were so worked up about this 'woke' bookshop in your town. I thought Tories were all in favour of small businesses being set up. It may or may not fail. But you actively want it to fail, which is odd for a Tory.
Meanwhile, on the Woke scale Starmer is pretty much in the middle, I'd have thought, and I don't see the next Labour government being captured by the extreme wokeites for one minute.
I've lived here for my whole life. It's my hometown. I was excited about this new bookshop when I saw it, and then I went in - and I'm crushingly disappointed.
You don't expect to see a bit of Islington in rural Hampshire, so I can't say I wish them well, but if it isn't my cup of tea why should I go in there and support them?
I'm not trying to ban them or make them illegal. But it doesn't mean I'm rooting for them.
There’s actually only one Waterstones in Islington. It’s a bit barren on the bookshop front, and actually not especially woke.
How many approved non-Woke bookshops are there in Islington? Just checking. (I don't mean the kind of bookshop that is neutral on this front, like specialist transport shops like the one that used to be in St Martin's Lane in London. I'm assuming here trhat the trains bit cancels out the petrolheads bit, obvs.)
OK.
If they want to start a culture war in my home town I will do my best to fucking finish it.
These people need to be defeated. Woke is a cancer.
That seems not wildly different from saying that in rural Hampshire, these folk should get back in the closet. How is opening a bookshop ‘starting a culture war’ ?
It's not a bookshop, it's a wokeshop.
It seems to be getting woker the more you dwell on it, to the point I'm surprised they didn't ambush you on the way in to indoctrinate you.
Here are their "what are we reading?" recommendations from their website:
"Ash": CALL ME BY MY NAME by Andre Aciman (Romance/ Lit-fic / LGBTQ) - moving story of a growing, passionate, obsessive love affair.
"Lee": NATIVES- RACE AND CLASS in the RUINS of EMPIRE (socio-political) by Akala. A fascinating insight into race and class in modern Britain from poet and hip-hop artist Akala. A great mix of the personal and the political.
"Ella": THE HATE YOU GIVE (YA urban fiction) by Angie Thomas - pacy, moving account of a black boy shot dead by the police, and the fallout for the community, his family and friends
"Lou": OUR MISSING HEARTS by Celeste Ng - It's a story about the power - and limitations - of art to create change in the world, the lessons and legacies we pass onto our children, and how any of us can survive a broken world with our hearts intact. (this one is basically an anti-nationalist/Trump book)
It's a Wokeshop.
This does all sound a bit predictable, even if the last book does sound a bit more open-ended and with some potential. As mentioned earlier, I personally look to small independent bookshops for the obscure, the esoteric, or the unpredictable. You can find some quite extraordinary stuff in some of these tiny shops, even if many have become larger, more streamlined, and more organised now.
They probably didn't even read all of those books.
90%+ of this is about being seen to be promoting the "right" books to their peer group.
That's why I hate Woke so much. It lobotomises people in the search of social proof. And I can't respect people who do it.
Have you hung around with any actual teenagers?
They read books they want to read. That's why Stephanie Meyer (who is bloody awful) is second on the best sellers' list.
Also, and why Dan Brown is one of the most successful authors of all time, and Dan Brown imitators can be very successful novelists.
As for hanging around teenagers, I wouldn't recommend it even when I was a teenager.
Try it after a certain age, and you'll only end up looking like Rishi Sunak.
Good grief, what is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with @Leon.
Joe Wright's 2005 Pride & Prejudice is excellent and Knightly is a perfect Elizabeth Bennett.
I sense a new, quite toxic, divide in the culture wars.
Between those who realise Jane Austen's work is shit and those who have yet to read it preoperly?
I do not believe her work is shit (far from it) so I have clearly never read it properly.
Any suggestions as to how I might improve my obviously imperfect 'start at the beginning, read to the end, enjoy as I go' technique?
It is not so much the work is shit but there is a tendency to put people on a pedestal because they are ancient. cf chaucer, shakespeare etc. They aren't bad but there are equally competent contemporaries
Fair point. But the genius of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen should not be at all diminished by today's best writers.
The same is true of composers and visual artists.
One medium where I think the old 'classics' are significantly inferior to today's is film. I give as exhibit one a film often lauded as the best ever: Citizen Kane, which is in fact utter tripe and compares very poorly with today's best films.
Film at the moment is in the doldrums. Covid really fucked it.
The UN needs a force in there, with a remit to shoot loggers on sight.
Frankly, nothing short of that will save it. Certainly not the Brazilian Govt of whatever hue, one of the world's most corrupt regimes with politicians of all stripes getting very rich on kickbacks.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
Most surprising thing about today's visit to Kyiv has to be that Zelensky is even shorter than Sunak.
Somewhere or other I saw a photomontage of world leaders ranked by height, and was surprised how far down Zelensky came. I think the shortest was Kim Jong-un, though apparently he has an official height which makes him an inch taller than Sunak.
It does feel like 95/96 politically (although in no other way) and you can definitely see a Labour landslide. Bet Starmer is feeling this too. He's going all in with the Blair playbook and the goal is a similar result. Expect a solid but cautious manifesto, no risks to the big win, then in power sticking to tory fiscal plans for a year or so, also something on the Constitution (FFA for Scotland?), and maybe towards the end of the first term a muscular foreign policy initiative with a military aspect to it.
There are several ways in which the situation is worse than 95/96 for the Tories. The main one is the sense in which they appear not to have a fucking clue. Making mistakes is one thing, but the whole Truss/Kwarteng, then do the exact opposite with Sunak/Hunt within less than two months, thing is on a completely different level.
The fact that the Tory party put Truss/Kwarteng in charge, and then they were so bad that they were replaced in just 49 days is you wouldn't trust them to boil an egg. There's still a couple of years for the voters to decide they don't trust the Tories to be the Opposition, and somehow manage to put the Lib Dems, or Farage's latest publicity vehicle in the running for that instead.
49 days.
Yes. Quite so. John Major’s government - after the ERM debacle - was actually pretty competent. Full of infighting and euro wars, but they knew what they wanted - low tax, high growth - and aimed for it, and got it
This now is worse by orders of magnitude. “Hi we’re the Tories and we’ve been in power 12 years and we’re successfully delivering the worst recession, the worst fall in living standards and the highest taxes since the signing of Magna Carta. Plus tons of immigration we claim we don’t want. And chaos. Endless chaos. Vote for us in 2024”
Yes - what caused 1997 was the perception of sleeze among Conservative MPs plus Black Wednesday. Major himself was rather popular.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
Good grief, what is the world coming to? I find myself agreeing with @Leon.
Joe Wright's 2005 Pride & Prejudice is excellent and Knightly is a perfect Elizabeth Bennett.
I sense a new, quite toxic, divide in the culture wars.
Between those who realise Jane Austen's work is shit and those who have yet to read it preoperly?
I do not believe her work is shit (far from it) so I have clearly never read it properly.
Any suggestions as to how I might improve my obviously imperfect 'start at the beginning, read to the end, enjoy as I go' technique?
It is not so much the work is shit but there is a tendency to put people on a pedestal because they are ancient. cf chaucer, shakespeare etc. They aren't bad but there are equally competent contemporaries
Fair point. But the genius of Chaucer, Shakespeare and Austen should not be at all diminished by today's best writers.
The same is true of composers and visual artists.
One medium where I think the old 'classics' are significantly inferior to today's is film. I give as exhibit one a film often lauded as the best ever: Citizen Kane, which is in fact utter tripe and compares very poorly with today's best films.
Film at the moment is in the doldrums. Covid really fucked it.
Hopefully will return to form at some stage.
There are still good films made just they rarely seem to go mainstream. I have a regular movie night with my young lady for example and we watched predestination. Which we both loved but would never be a box office hit
Most people use "woke" pejoratively, like "political correctness" so insofar as people think they know what it is, they tend to be against it if you ask them in a poll. Like sympathy for Arctic seals or dislike of Marmite, it doesn't mean they actually give the issue much thought or care enough to change their votes over it.
That's convenient in terms of being able to dismiss such a response, when if it had been the opposite it wouldn't have been dismissed?
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
The UN needs a force in there, with a remit to shoot loggers on sight.
Frankly, nothing short of that will save it. Certainly not the Brazilian Govt of whatever hue, one of the world's most corrupt regimes with politicians of all stripes getting very rich on kickbacks.
Yeah I’ve long thought this kind of thing. Special forces taking out poachers and loggers. The navy taking out deep sea fishers and whalers. Would be an awesome movie.
The header is correct to ask questions. At present there are hardly any answers, I think.
And from the PB Dyspeptic Euro-media Obsessive Correspondent, a very interesting report from France24 on how the French energy mix is under pressure and changing.
Interesting stuff in particular about floating solar on reservoirs.
(This morning we are exporting just under £1m per hour of electricity to France)
France is currently demonstrating that nuclear is not quite as reliable as is usually assumed.
It’s almost as of having a balanced mix of energy sources, a sensibly staggered maintenance schedule and a sane replacement policy would be a good idea.
If your nuclear reactor has a lifespan of 40 years, you want to start building the replacement so that it is planned to be ready 35 years from now. So even if there are a few slips, you will be ready….
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped . We are spending far too much prolonging a war (that can never be won anyway long term) between two countires that used to be the same country 30 years ago and both as corrupt as hell. Its a slavic border dispute when you break it down
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Most people recognise that the ukraine war is existential. Russia wins and it means more wars as they try to expand. The number of people who believe russia will stop at ukraine if they get their way is vanishingly small.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Ok, so you don't believe polling.
But you've asserted strongly that giving money to Ukraine is not popular, so if not polling what has led you to believe that?
Because if it is simply your gut feeling I don't see how you can suggest Benpointer or anyone else is out of touch for having a different gut feeling?
As for who devised the questions (We'll leave aside the funding point), the questions are right there - whoever devises them, we can see them and the people asked them responded strongly against your view.
Your position seems to be that people don't mean it when they say it, because you don't like it. - as your edits make very clear.
You may not like that people do see it as more than a slavic border dispute, and think they shouldn't feel that, but evidence is that they do.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
thank you for finding a link I couldn't when I make statements I do prefer to source them I just couldnt find a link this time
It did surprise me tbh, I thought I'd found a link that would prove my point ;-)
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
I think you'd need some evidence to back up that point of view. I don't know (I don't have such evidence), but anecdotally a surprising proportion of my middle-class, wokey, left-leaning bubble are supportive of sending everything we can. I'd say personally it was something I thought I'd oppose, but have had to re-evaluate my views quite strongly.
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
thank you for finding a link I couldn't when I make statements I do prefer to source them I just couldnt find a link this time
It did surprise me tbh, I thought I'd found a link that would prove my point ;-)
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
Yes a lot of people probably thought inflation wouldnt be an issue because its been held down. Also in the mix is I wonder how many assume retirement will be just a few years. I know for example I dont expect to live much past 70. Therefore they assume that index linking wouldnt pay off due to low inflation and expected lifespan.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
thank you for finding a link I couldn't when I make statements I do prefer to source them I just couldnt find a link this time
It did surprise me tbh, I thought I'd found a link that would prove my point ;-)
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
I'm actually not clear on the relationship between Pensioner Credit and Universal Credit.
Suspect that if they were combined, the anti-pensioner lobby would be performing outrage about the possibility of them potentially being the same.
Aside: Though in trying to plan rents for next year for a couple of Ts on one benefit or the other, I discovered that capping an increase at the increase they will get in the housing element of the benefit is impossible because I have to agree a suitable rent with them, then give months (3, I think) of notice, and the Council don't hear what the level of LHA in April 23 will be until March 23. So we have to guess what it will be when agreeing a rent with the T in December 22 for implementation in April 23.
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
Thanks for the kind words and the insults.
I really hope you find a way of channelling your anger positively - life's too short to be angry at bookshops or anonymous people on the Internet.
Bear it in mind next time you think about passing judgement on my character or accusing me of crass ignorance.
Bloody cheek.
And have a think on that pomposity as well. Your posts are full of it, and far too long.
I appreciate the comments on my posts and you're probably right but perhaps my strength is over-long pomposity while yours is clearly angry self-obsessed childish rants.
The anger is entirely your own projection.
I absolutely don't want to wade into a very personal and quite vicious exchange, but of what you wrote above is the case I also share such a projection. 'Autistic' is not okay, and your anger comes across strongly.
Speaking of suspect (by somebody) books, have a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook" which I found at used book store decades ago.
Long before that, when I was working as a lowly bookstore clerk, in a chain bookstore at a shopping mall, a rather arrogant - and dumb - police detective "interrogated" me as to whether we had any copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" for sale. OR if anyone had ordered a copy.
No on both counts.
Of course, he never noticed that we were selling collectible postage stamps - including stamps from Peoples Republic of China, at a time when it was NOT legal to sell them in the USA. (The chain being owned & based in Canada!)
The UN needs a force in there, with a remit to shoot loggers on sight.
Frankly, nothing short of that will save it. Certainly not the Brazilian Govt of whatever hue, one of the world's most corrupt regimes with politicians of all stripes getting very rich on kickbacks.
Yeah I’ve long thought this kind of thing. Special forces taking out poachers and loggers. The navy taking out deep sea fishers and whalers. Would be an awesome movie.
It is the policy that Richard Leaky pursued very successfully to reduce poaching in Kenya.
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
Thanks for the kind words and the insults.
I really hope you find a way of channelling your anger positively - life's too short to be angry at bookshops or anonymous people on the Internet.
Bear it in mind next time you think about passing judgement on my character or accusing me of crass ignorance.
Bloody cheek.
And have a think on that pomposity as well. Your posts are full of it, and far too long.
I appreciate the comments on my posts and you're probably right but perhaps my strength is over-long pomposity while yours is clearly angry self-obsessed childish rants.
The anger is entirely your own projection.
I absolutely don't want to wade into a very personal and quite vicious exchange, but of what you wrote above is the case I also share such a projection. 'Autistic' is not okay, and your anger comes across strongly.
Your criticism is entirely illegitimate (as is that of @OllyT) as it entirely ignores the personal insults and slights that @stodge mad against me.
So it's just partisanship, I'm afraid. Same goes to the cowards who flagged me.
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
I think you'd need some evidence to back up that point of view. I don't know (I don't have such evidence), but anecdotally a surprising proportion of my middle-class, wokey, left-leaning bubble are supportive of sending everything we can. I'd say personally it was something I thought I'd oppose, but have had to re-evaluate my views quite strongly.
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
I suspect if you went into a British pub and cheered on Putin, you'd get a nasty surprise. At least, any pub I know of.
"state_go_away" belies his/her pseudonym if it comes to a totalitarian state indulging in an aggressive war against a smaller neighbour. Who would have thought it?
There was a physical Amazon bookstore near me. If it were it still open and I was feeling mischievous as I walked by, I might wander in and ask them if they have "When Harry Became Sally", or one of the classic Heinlein novels that annoy the left, like "Starship Troopers".
And, if I were feeling downright ornery, I might ask them to order Abigail Shrier's "Irreversible Damage", or one of Thomas Sowell's books on race.
Have you seen the film of Starship Troopers? All the black uniforms one could want.
In any case, just have a look at some of the stuff Amazon sell. Woke, they aren't.
I remember seeing a hilarious review of the movie from a fan of the Heinlein novel who was outraged that the military tactics being followed by the army made no sense, crying about there being no powered armoured suits and completely missed that Verhoeven was parodying fascism.
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
Yes or no, PB?
Go for it.
That’s my hunch. I’ve never avoided mad things before
And I loved ayahuasca
Bloody serious tho. Hours of medical tests weeks beforehand to make sure you can cope
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
thank you for finding a link I couldn't when I make statements I do prefer to source them I just couldnt find a link this time
It did surprise me tbh, I thought I'd found a link that would prove my point ;-)
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
I'm actually not clear on the relationship between Pensioner Credit and Universal Credit.
Suspect that if they were combined, the anti-pensioner lobby would be performing outrage about the possibility of them potentially being the same.
Pension Credit is well over twice as generous as UC.
PC tops your income up to £182.60 pw; UC is £77.29 per week (both rates for single people).
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
Yes or no, PB?
Go for it.
That’s my hunch. I’ve never avoided mad things before
And I loved ayahuasca
Bloody serious tho. Hours of medical tests weeks beforehand to make sure you can cope
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
As I understand it, for solid reasons of geography, once they are in a position to isolate Crimea, they actually retake a substantial chunk of it. And that's going to be another huge hit to Russian morale.
And once again, it is basically about how long it takes to make the supply situation unsustainable for the Russian forces as to whether that happens before or after Christmas.
The fact that RU are pulling troops to the East suggests that things are going to go faster in the South than we might have expected.
The trouble with being the party of pensioners and unproductive wealth (e.g. housing) is that those are both highly unproductive parts of the economy.
During the Tories time in power they have:
- Cut spending on most things other than pensions and healthcare (of course mostly for elderly people) to the bone. - Retained subsidies (e.g. on fuel next year, winter fuel allowance etc) for retirees - Maintained pensions in real terms while workers get a pay cut - Increased taxes significantly on working people
All of this results in a drag on economic growth and further falls in living standards for those in work. All while having no grand strategy to encourage investment and growth.
Pensioners may vote but you can't win an election with them alone. The Tories deserve to be tossed out of power for at least a decade.
But this is a false, prejudiced narrative.
Just last year State Pensions went up by 2.5%, compared to an increase in average earnings of 8.8%. The triple lock was suspended.
Whilst this year I think State Pension is increasing by inflation at 10.1% (?), whilst average earnings are increasing by 5.1% (annual figure in Q2).
So this year's pensions vs average earnings, allegedly a major offence, does not even balance out last year's difference.
The state pension increase will be applied across the board, and those pensioners on higher tax rates will be taxed on the extra income at their marginal rate, which will be up to 60%.
I'm not wasting time on the "elderly use most NHS resources" stuff, because they don't unless you start your definition of 'elderly' at an absurdly young age.
Given that poverty amongst pensioners is higher than in the general population (the last numbers I saw were 13% vs 10%), increasing state pension faster than inflation is not unreasonable - as long as richer pensioner get higher tax rates.
Personally I'd withdraw the winter heating allowance and other benefits, and compensate for it by setting state pension at a more reasonable level, rather than relying on the incredibly slow progress under the Triple Lock. I'm quite inclined to the Dutch model of a % of minimum wage level.
Capital taxes are another game altogether, of course. Nor will I go into the millions of pensioners who *are* economically active.
You're just cherry picking dates. Earnings rose lots last year because they fell the year before. Over the period from Covid as a whole pensions have gone up by more than inflation, while wages have not.
If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits (I don't get any child support or free childcare, all means tested). Maintaining pensions at or above inflation for all while working people have real term pay cuts and increased taxes is a surefire way to have a managed decline of our economy.
The only increase is on state pensions, many pensioners will still have less money due to inflation because most private pensions are not index linked. Yes the state pension bit will go up but the rest wont.
As an example and I simplified the numbers for calcualtion
9000 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15000
after uprating by 10%
9900 state pension + 6000 dc pension = 15900
total increase = (15900/15000) * 100 = 6% increase
...most private pensions are not index linked...
Do you have a source for that? I would have guessed the vast majority were index-linked, albeit with a 5% cap.
direct benefit ones yes, direct contribution not so much, when you buy an annuity you have a choice between an amount and a much smaller amount but index linked. Most I believe take the higher amount and you could argue yes its not forward thinking.
Fair play - you appear to be right, at least according to this 2014 FCA report. The vast majority choose to buy fixed annuities.
thank you for finding a link I couldn't when I make statements I do prefer to source them I just couldnt find a link this time
It did surprise me tbh, I thought I'd found a link that would prove my point ;-)
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
I'm actually not clear on the relationship between Pensioner Credit and Universal Credit.
Suspect that if they were combined, the anti-pensioner lobby would be performing outrage about the possibility of them potentially being the same.
Pension Credit is well over twice as generous as UC.
PC tops your income up to £182.60 pw; UC is £77.29 per week (both rates for single people).
Interesting - I'll have a read up on that.
I'm familiar with the system for single parents, and pensioners.
Do you know how different that UC rate is from what was originally intended by Iain Duncan-Smith?
(General UC took a clobbering between 2015 and 2020 under Mr Osborne via a cash-terms freeze.)
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
Yes or no, PB?
Go for it.
That’s my hunch. I’ve never avoided mad things before
And I loved ayahuasca
Bloody serious tho. Hours of medical tests weeks beforehand to make sure you can cope
For most people I'd say no, but for you it's probably a yes.
Hope it goes ok if you do it, and that you can duly report back to us in due course so that we can partake vicariously.
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
I find you the most ridiculous poster on here but so what? I assume your Hooray Henry persona is something you've invented and you do it quite well so good luck to you.
But If I was looking to be informed I'd read Stodge any day of the week
The header is correct to ask questions. At present there are hardly any answers, I think.
And from the PB Dyspeptic Euro-media Obsessive Correspondent, a very interesting report from France24 on how the French energy mix is under pressure and changing.
Interesting stuff in particular about floating solar on reservoirs.
(This morning we are exporting just under £1m per hour of electricity to France)
France is currently demonstrating that nuclear is not quite as reliable as is usually assumed.
It’s almost as of having a balanced mix of energy sources, a sensibly staggered maintenance schedule and a sane replacement policy would be a good idea.
If your nuclear reactor has a lifespan of 40 years, you want to start building the replacement so that it is planned to be ready 35 years from now. So even if there are a few slips, you will be ready….
The most recent French reactor came on stream around 2000 aiui. So they need to start progressive newbuild, and run it alongside a renewables programme to diversify.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
As I understand it, for solid reasons of geography, once they are in a position to isolate Crimea, they actually retake a substantial chunk of it. And that's going to be another huge hit to Russian morale.
And once again, it is basically about how long it takes to make the supply situation unsustainable for the Russian forces as to whether that happens before or after Christmas.
The fact that RU are pulling troops to the East suggests that things are going to go faster in the South than we might have expected.
AFAICS one sensible strategy is to cut the land bridge near Melitopol, as that is a partisan centre since Feb, and there is a big estuary in line reducing the Ru land depth.
Then blowing the Kerch Bridge properly, and let them stew until March whilst applying pressure.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
Impressive majorities, with no weakening of resolve even over the "send money" and "take more refugees" questions, which is where I'd have expected support to weaken. If the amount of money was highlighted, the support might be affected a bit, but still it's solid backing.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
Impressive majorities, with no weakening of resolve even over the "send money" and "take more refugees" questions, which is where I'd have expected support to weaken. If the amount of money was highlighted, the support might be affected a bit, but still it's solid backing.
Amazing what happens to attitudes to migration when you're in control and give people a choice, isn't it?
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
I find you the most ridiculous poster on here but so what? I assume your Hooray Henry persona is something you've invented and you do it quite well so good luck to you.
But If I was looking to be informed I'd read Stodge any day of the week
Stodge is one of my favorite reads too, Rog, but having met him I can promise you he's plenty big enough to take care of himself!
My mad American billionaire ayahuasca taking friend wants me to join a deep DMT experiment at “a famous UK university”
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
Yes or no, PB?
Go for it.
That’s my hunch. I’ve never avoided mad things before
And I loved ayahuasca
Bloody serious tho. Hours of medical tests weeks beforehand to make sure you can cope
Probably Carhart-Harris at Imperial.
Don't worry about the medical tests, it's safe as houses. They are just scared shitless that after losing 50 years research because of Leary being an arsehole, they have a freak death and get headlines about acid-crazed boffin destroys distinguished novelist in Frankenstein psycho-experiment, and bang goes another 50 years.
It is quite easily extracted from legally available vegetable matter, and quite a lot of people know this, so I don't know where the only 20 people stat comes from. Possibly from Strassman's book, which is worth reading before reaching a decision
I find you the most ridiculous poster on here but so what? I assume your Hooray Henry persona is something you've invented and you do it quite well so good luck to you.
But If I was looking to be informed I'd read Stodge any day of the week
Thanks, my friend. I know you've had plenty of stick from a few individuals on here over the years but I've always enjoyed your content.
We're none of us objective and don't pretend to be.
It doesn't matter - we're all anonymous individuals and this is the bearpit and occasionally the bears show their claws.
Listening in to a couple of young people in early 20s today. Complained of being trapped in the matrix and that you work 40 odd years with only a couple weeks holiday a year. One was looking to get into share trading, another crypto But this goes to a wider point. The conservatives offer no hope to young people. This is a technocratic govt imposed on the population similar to Draghis in Italy which has no vision and offers no hope.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped .
Graphic here:
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
On the Black Sea coast the weather isn’t that extreme in winter. I think it can get to -10c in a very cold year. Minus -5 is more normal and some years it barely reaches freezing.
Modern vehicles and equipment can do much better in the mud - if you look at the old films and pictures of the Germans struggling in the mud, you will notice how narrow the tires were in those days. Engines were much smaller as well.
The tories will get a worse result if Sunak continues to think £50 million is the price to pay for a photo opportunity over Ukraine. What a waste of money.
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
You are completely out of touch; this is one of the few things Sunak is doing which will give him some credibility with the voting public.
Its you who is out of touch if you think the average person (not the war obsessed on here) thinks sending more money to Ukraine is popular
What are you basing that on? This, from October, suggests that at the moment by far more people support measures, and in fact the 'war obsessed' who think we should do more outnumber those who think we have given too much.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose 7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
wonder who funds these surveys or devised the questions - just like the covid mask wearing ones where a zillion percent always wanted to wear them and the moment they legally could not they stopped . We are spending far too much prolonging a war (that can never be won anyway long term) between two countires that used to be the same country 30 years ago and both as corrupt as hell. Its a slavic border dispute when you break it down
Think you would find if it came to actual boots on the ground to fight russia attitudes would quickly change
@Gardenwalker I've noticed cinemas here are really struggling.
Our local has closed for good, and the multiplex in Basingstoke seems to be mostly empty most of the time.
One assumes it's better on a Friday and Saturday night, but I don't know that.
I am actually en route to the cinema to see a shit film with the kids.
Regarding struggling cinemas, I blame poor product. The industry has been buggered by the twin forces of Covid and Marvel.
However I have young kids so I accept that I am not - for the moment - watching films like I used to.
The signs were there before COVID. I was getting free tickets every week in the Prudential Vitality scheme. The local cinema - Vue at Shepards Bush was always empty, maybe half full for popular new releases.
Listening in to a couple of young people in early 20s today. Complained of being trapped in the matrix and that you work 40 odd years with only a couple weeks holiday a year. One was looking to get into share trading, another crypto But this goes to a wider point. The conservatives offer no hope to young people. This is a technocratic govt imposed on the population similar to Draghis in Italy which has no vision and offers no hope.
You mean the government isn't offering young people the option of working 2 weeks a year and having 50 weeks holiday? Presumably they would be hoping for an income of at least £50k as well?
It does feel like 95/96 politically (although in no other way) and you can definitely see a Labour landslide. Bet Starmer is feeling this too. He's going all in with the Blair playbook and the goal is a similar result. Expect a solid but cautious manifesto, no risks to the big win, then in power sticking to tory fiscal plans for a year or so, also something on the Constitution (FFA for Scotland?), and maybe towards the end of the first term a muscular foreign policy initiative with a military aspect to it.
- ”FFA for Scotland?”
Seen it. Heard it. Bought the t-shirt. Not gonna happen.
Listening in to a couple of young people in early 20s today. Complained of being trapped in the matrix and that you work 40 odd years with only a couple weeks holiday a year. One was looking to get into share trading, another crypto But this goes to a wider point. The conservatives offer no hope to young people. This is a technocratic govt imposed on the population similar to Draghis in Italy which has no vision and offers no hope.
You mean the government isn't offering young people the option of working 2 weeks a year and having 50 weeks holiday? Presumably they would be hoping for an income of at least £50k as well?
Maybe but the govt offers people nothing but a technocratic programme of misery. The point is already half a million people have left the workforce since 2019 and this will be a problem for the govt
That's because plenty of public sector workers do fuck all in the office, but they have to be *seen* to be doing something in the office, so sullenly answer a phone call, or an email, as their manager overlooks their shoulder, but can easily do fuck all at home (with no-one to supervise) and get away with it.
It is absolutely not the case in the private sector, where in professional services people can focus on documents, research, client meetings, 1:1s and virtual workshops without being dog-tired from commuting five days a week.
You really are full of anger today - bookshops that don't sell the books you want and now public sector workers who, in your crass ignorance, don't work the way you want them to.
It's quite clear you don't have the slightest idea how the public sector operates - just because the Daily Mail tells you something doesn't make it true.
I've worked on both sides of the fence and, if I'm honest, there are incredibly hard working people in both the private and public sector and incredibly lazy people in both.
The old mantra "Public Bad, Private Good" sounds like something from the dark days of the 1980s.
1984 - perhaps you'll find that in your local bookshop along with Animal Farm.
You're an autistic bore who posts tedious pompous diatribes that no-one reads, so forgive me if I don't give a shit what you think.
I find you the most ridiculous poster on here but so what? I assume your Hooray Henry persona is something you've invented and you do it quite well so good luck to you.
But If I was looking to be informed I'd read Stodge any day of the week
You 'find' me the most ridiculous poster on here but you are the most ridiculous poster on here.
Comments
Not an easy stat to find else I would supply a source but I suspect most being told you can have 5k a year or 3.5k a year index linked are going to head down the 5k route
Or were you just agreeing with me ?
Hard working people have to work harder to fund layabouts and a pointless continuation of the war in Ukraine (or corrupt Ukraine officials) - What have the tories become? Get them out.
Has there ever been as weak and shallow PM? Everyone plays him for a song
Most people don't know what it means but awareness is growing - as this yougov polling from July shows.
Awareness shows up in the real questions on its specific derivative issues.
I make my own views know with force but I've had a very pleasant day with my family, thank you.
Your problem is you read all the threads, store up all your thoughts and emotions and then suddenly dump them on the blog when the cup overfloweth. And shotgun neg us all.
Try engaging in a more steady, measured and consistent way.
The same is true of composers and visual artists.
One medium where I think the old 'classics' are significantly inferior to today's is film. I give as exhibit one a film often lauded as the best ever: Citizen Kane, which is in fact utter tripe and compares very poorly with today's best films.
Obviously the insanity of the Truss-Kwarteng aberration was very damaging and the Tory party can't just wipe its hands of that.
But really there seems to be an assumption underlying a lot of the criticism, that things should carry on getting better and better, and we should expect to have more and more money to spend on gratifying ourselves for ever and ever.
How on earth could this crazy idea have embedded itself so deeply into people's heads?
In the West, on average, we're already living in a way that's well beyond our current means. Maybe technology can catch up to the extent of making our current lifestyle sustainable, and even bringing the great majority of the world's population up to the same level. But that's a bloody tall order.
If only all our politicians would try to teach us to be a bit more grown up in our expectations, and tell us that we shouldn't expect ourselves to be continually showered with more and more and better and better toys from the age of 9 to 99, rather than trying to buy our votes on the wholly duplicitous promise that the current (or rather recent) binge can continue for ever.
My defined benefits is index linked at up to 3% or 5% (would need to check).
The defined contribution annuity return on purchase more or less halved in the 2000s, which made me pay much more attention to the self-made investments.
It may be the Sunak goverment could do everything right - unlikely, but possible - and yet comment and opinion won't give them fair credit for that. That's what happens when you destroy your credility.
Most people don't know what it means but awareness is growing - as this yougov polling from July shows.
Awareness shows up in the real questions on its specific derivative issues.
Most people use "woke" pejoratively, like "political correctness" so insofar as people think they know what it is, they tend to be against it if you ask them in a poll. Like sympathy for Arctic seals or dislike of Marmite, it doesn't mean they actually give the issue much thought or care enough to change their votes over it.
Covid really fucked it.
Hopefully will return to form at some stage.
Frankly, nothing short of that will save it. Certainly not the Brazilian Govt of whatever hue, one of the world's most corrupt regimes with politicians of all stripes getting very rich on kickbacks.
What alternative measurement of opinion are you using to state the average person does not support sending money?
6 in 10 support Britain’s response to the conflict – just 12% oppose
7 in 10 continue to support economic sanctions against Russia – but some evidence support could wane if there are further energy price rises
Despite a large proportion of Britons saying the situation in Ukraine is impacting their cost of living, few oppose supporting Ukraine through the conflict. Six in 10 (60%) support Britain’s current role in the conflict, including providing a range of economic, humanitarian and defensive military assistance to Ukraine, as well as imposing additional sanctions on Russia and Belarus...Meanwhile, around half say the UK has provided about the right amount of support to Ukraine (51%) while 17% say we have given too much and 19% say too little support
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/public-continues-support-britains-role-ukraine-conflict
https://www.fca.org.uk/publication/research/annuities-consumer-behaviour-review.pdf
It’s another thing going into a full “Falling Down” spree after one encounter with a gay novel in Haslemere.
If your nuclear reactor has a lifespan of 40 years, you want to start building the replacement so that it is planned to be ready 35 years from now. So even if there are a few slips, you will be ready….
@state_go_away You seem to be resorting to slightly desperate explanations.
I'd say you are wrong on this one.
Though how those numbers change through the winter will be interesting, and whether Putin is willing to negotiate sensibly will also be revealing.
I'd say we have one more push likely from Ukraine before Christmas to effectively isolate Crimea.
But you've asserted strongly that giving money to Ukraine is not popular, so if not polling what has led you to believe that?
Because if it is simply your gut feeling I don't see how you can suggest Benpointer or anyone else is out of touch for having a different gut feeling?
As for who devised the questions (We'll leave aside the funding point), the questions are right there - whoever devises them, we can see them and the people asked them responded strongly against your view.
Your position seems to be that people don't mean it when they say it, because you don't like it. - as your edits make very clear.
You may not like that people do see it as more than a slavic border dispute, and think they shouldn't feel that, but evidence is that they do.
While inflation was bobbling around at 1% this wasn't so much of an issue but a few years of 10%+ inflation is really going to decimate some of those pensions.
Earlier @Ratters said: "If pensioners are in poverty then we should have more means tested benefits for the poorest, like we do for all working age benefits". We do, it's called Pensions Credit.
I suspect if you went into a British pub and cheered on Putin, you'd get a nasty surprise. At least, any pub I know of.
Suspect that if they were combined, the anti-pensioner lobby would be performing outrage about the possibility of them potentially being the same.
Aside: Though in trying to plan rents for next year for a couple of Ts on one benefit or the other, I discovered that capping an increase at the increase they will get in the housing element of the benefit is impossible because I have to agree a suitable rent with them, then give months (3, I think) of notice, and the Council don't hear what the level of LHA in April 23 will be until March 23. So we have to guess what it will be when agreeing a rent with the T in December 22 for implementation in April 23.
Long before that, when I was working as a lowly bookstore clerk, in a chain bookstore at a shopping mall, a rather arrogant - and dumb - police detective "interrogated" me as to whether we had any copies of "The Anarchist Cookbook" for sale. OR if anyone had ordered a copy.
No on both counts.
Of course, he never noticed that we were selling collectible postage stamps - including stamps from Peoples Republic of China, at a time when it was NOT legal to sell them in the USA. (The chain being owned & based in Canada!)
30 minutes of the most intense hallucinations science can devise. Only 20 people in the world have experienced it. He’s done it and it sounds bloody scary
Yes or no, PB?
So it's just partisanship, I'm afraid. Same goes to the cowards who flagged me.
"Yes or no, PB?"
You're probably barmy enough to survive.
And I loved ayahuasca
Bloody serious tho. Hours of medical tests weeks beforehand to make sure you can cope
PC tops your income up to £182.60 pw; UC is £77.29 per week (both rates for single people).
And once again, it is basically about how long it takes to make the supply situation unsustainable for the Russian forces as to whether that happens before or after Christmas.
The fact that RU are pulling troops to the East suggests that things are going to go faster in the South than we might have expected.
Our local has closed for good, and the multiplex in Basingstoke seems to be mostly empty most of the time.
One assumes it's better on a Friday and Saturday night, but I don't know that.
The rest won't vote, don't know how they will vote or have gone to RefUK
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1593939410588143616?s=20&t=MOOJx9iDsXgkatHhVZODQQ
I'm familiar with the system for single parents, and pensioners.
Do you know how different that UC rate is from what was originally intended by Iain Duncan-Smith?
(General UC took a clobbering between 2015 and 2020 under Mr Osborne via a cash-terms freeze.)
Hope it goes ok if you do it, and that you can duly report back to us in due course so that we can partake vicariously.
Just ordered Enchanto on Prime. 15 minutes in and my 3 year-old is bored shitless.
Wants Frozen again.
One to watch.
Regarding struggling cinemas, I blame poor product. The industry has been buggered by the twin forces of Covid and Marvel.
However I have young kids so I accept that I am not - for the moment - watching films like I used to.
Please don’t talk about Bruno, no no.
Marvel is relentless junk. Obviously popular though.
She's three mate.
But If I was looking to be informed I'd read Stodge any day of the week
Recent polling Con 25% Lab 49%
Sunak appears to be holding 5 or 6/10 of those who voted for Johnson in 2019 (not 4/10 as Goodwin asserts).
If only '1 in 10 of Johnson 2019 voters (sic) are voting Labour' (i.e. 4.5% of voters) where are the other 10% increase in Labour support coming from?
Goodwin is clearly talking wishful nonsense.
Then blowing the Kerch Bridge properly, and let them stew until March whilst applying pressure.
A bigger version of the Kherson stragegy.
Punters aren't thinking this through.
The worse he and the Conservatives do the more likely it is he's replaced (again) before the GE, which means Starmer’s price should lengthen.
Way too short with over two years to go. I've laid some more.
Don't worry about the medical tests, it's safe as houses. They are just scared shitless that after losing 50 years research because of Leary being an arsehole, they have a freak death and get headlines about acid-crazed boffin destroys distinguished novelist in Frankenstein psycho-experiment, and bang goes another 50 years.
It is quite easily extracted from legally available vegetable matter, and quite a lot of people know this, so I don't know where the only 20 people stat comes from. Possibly from Strassman's book, which is worth reading before reaching a decision
https://www.amazon.co.uk/DMT-Molecule-Revolutionary-Near-Death-Experiences-ebook/dp/B003N3U3J4
We're none of us objective and don't pretend to be.
It doesn't matter - we're all anonymous individuals and this is the bearpit and occasionally the bears show their claws.
Nothing to get worked up about.
Complained of being trapped in the matrix and that you work 40 odd years with only a couple weeks holiday a year. One was looking to get into share trading, another crypto
But this goes to a wider point. The conservatives offer no hope to young people. This is a technocratic govt imposed on the population similar to Draghis in Italy which has no vision and offers no hope.
Modern vehicles and equipment can do much better in the mud - if you look at the old films and pictures of the Germans struggling in the mud, you will notice how narrow the tires were in those days. Engines were much smaller as well.
Seen it. Heard it. Bought the t-shirt.
Not gonna happen.
Ah, just googled. Get it now.
I couldn't hope for better validation.