Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Compare and contrast UK pension policy with what is happening in France – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 11,799
edited April 2023 in General
imageCompare and contrast UK pension policy with what is happening in France – politicalbetting.com

Over the past few weeks we have seen extraordinary TV pictures from France of the demonstrations that are taking place against the decision by the Macron government to try to increase the pensionable age up from 64.

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • Options
    Hmm, I wonder what that last sentence of the header means...also First.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    edited March 2023
    Work longer, pay more and get less.

    Inevitable with the change in demographics with longer lives, and decreasing fertility. It's only immigration that keeps the population pyramid stable.

    It is a worldwide issue and with fertility rates now below 1 in parts of Asia like South Korea is going to be a big drag on economies that cannot adapt.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/22/south-koreas-birthrate-sinks-to-fresh-record-low-as-population-crisis-deepens

    It may well be that world population peaks by 2050. Probably good for the planet, but requires adjustment to a lot of the ways we live and work.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/mar/27/world-population-bomb-may-never-go-off-as-feared-finds-study?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

    While life expectancy is increasing, disability free life much less so. As well as working longer, we have to able to adapt workplaces appropriately.

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    edited March 2023


    Reference for disability free life expectancy being static or worsening, while life expectancy stagnated. Note these figures are pre-pandemic.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/2018to2020

  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,174

    Hmm, I wonder what that last sentence of the header means...also First.

    Also, is 'punctual age' a technical term I wasn't aware of, or a strange autocorrect ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,174
    Disappointed in the header.

    I was really hoping this would be the lead.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1641630739702636545
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,174
    Nigelb said:

    Disappointed in the header.

    I was really hoping this would be the lead.
    https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1641630739702636545

    Along with this !
    https://mobile.twitter.com/joshcarlosjosh/status/1641587442170974209
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    The U.K. is far from an outlier.


  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 60,101
    The life expectancy of a woman aged 65 in 1841 was 11.5 years and reached 20.9 years in 2011. For men of the same age it was 10.9 years in 1841 and 18.3 years in 2011. But how has this affected how long pensions need to last?

    In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years (1901), meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years. However, compare this to the latest figures and we see how pensions need to last longer. The current state pension age for men is 65 and for women it will reach 65 by November 2018. In 2011 men and women at this age were expected to live for approximately 20 more years, meaning we need to make our pensions last more than twice as long as when they were first introduced.




    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,591
    It is interesting that the only significant protests here in recent years about pensions have been about ironing out something that was completely indefensible and a scandal for decades, namely the huge and unjustifiable sexism in the system against men. While the raising of the retirement age, which it is far easier to oppose, as it is not really possible to say that retirement at 66 will cripple the country while 67 will save it, passes with barely a murmur.

    To me it shows that the wisdom in Lord Lawson's saying that a great deal of governing is telling the difficult from the disastrous. It is clearly very difficult to do and there's lots of luck involved. And, of course, even the luckiest politician will eventually run out - as Mrs Thatcher and Tony Blair did.
  • Options
    edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,180
    Are we going to see what's in the Trump indictment at some point?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't actually need to know what something is to form an opinion about it.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,174

    Are we going to see what's in the Trump indictment at some point?

    Don't get me wrong, I don't actually need to know what something is to form an opinion about it.

    We'll have to wait until he's arrested and charged, probably.
    There's a fair explanation of the likely case here:
    https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/30/trump-indictment-legal-faqs-00089864

    It's not the strongest of cases which he might face.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,023
    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.

    Same here, born late ‘77 and expecting to be at least 69. Not that it’s stopping me paying additional NICs to make up for a decade of working abroad, and saving like crazy with a plan for us to stop full-time work at 60.
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,125
    Good morning, everyone.

    People live longer, pension age rises. Makes sense.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    edited March 2023
    Mr Dancer, it’s raining in Melbourne. P2 could be somewhat unrepresentative.
  • Options
    JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,084
    Foxy said:



    Reference for disability free life expectancy being static or worsening, while life expectancy stagnated. Note these figures are pre-pandemic.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/2018to2020

    Well, that’s a sobering chart to wake up to!
  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,125
    Mr. Sandpit, hmm, Leclerc top 2 would've been a nice result, for those who backed it, if it stays that way.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,425
    Sandpit said:

    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.

    Same here, born late ‘77 and expecting to be at least 69. Not that it’s stopping me paying additional NICs to make up for a decade of working abroad, and saving like crazy with a plan for us to stop full-time work at 60.
    I was lucky. I received my state pension at 65. My wife will have to wait till 66yrs 5 months.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and people's minds are already made up.

    Labour will win a landslide.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309
    edited March 2023
    I'm sure this has been mentioned but the UK is falling behind on life expectancy:

    https://news.sky.com/story/uk-falling-behind-other-countries-on-life-expectancy-measure-12834986

    and:

    https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1056

    Generally linked to the UK's slide in economic prosperity. Of the G7 countries only the USA is faring worse than the UK.

    #MUKGA ;)
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:



    Reference for disability free life expectancy being static or worsening, while life expectancy stagnated. Note these figures are pre-pandemic.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/healthandlifeexpectancies/bulletins/healthstatelifeexpectanciesuk/2018to2020

    Well, that’s a sobering chart to wake up to!
    Both Life expectancy and Disability free life expectancy are strongly related to social deprivation too.

    In practice a lot of folk will be stopping work at the same age as now, but on disability benefit rather than pension.

  • Options
    Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,125
    Worth noting life expectancy tends to correlate highly with prosperity but the relationship is far from precise.

    Look at America. Or, Hungary (I believe) in the 1950s, after a crushed uprising. Economically, things grew significantly. Life expectancy declined, however.
  • Options
    solarflaresolarflare Posts: 3,623

    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.

    Similar age here.

    Essentially my retirement plan already involves treating the stage pension like a helpful bonus and trying to get to a place where I can do it entirely on my private pension. I honestly don't know if the maths of that completely stack up but it seems increasingly dodgy to rely on the state pension.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309
    edited March 2023
    Nigelb said:

    Hmm, I wonder what that last sentence of the header means...also First.

    Also, is 'punctual age' a technical term I wasn't aware of, or a strange autocorrect ?

    Edit
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,919

    The U.K. is far from an outlier.


    The US clearly has things worked out - feed the population on sugary highly processed fast food and make sure they can’t walk anywhere, and wait for nature to do the rest…
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    The U.K. is far from an outlier.


    France is the outlier, yet they’re rioting to maintain the status quo, against reforms that have already been made elsewhere.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    IanB2 said:

    The U.K. is far from an outlier.


    The US clearly has things worked out - feed the population on sugary highly processed fast food and make sure they can’t walk anywhere, and wait for nature to do the rest…
    And lots of prescription opiates and guns!
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,919
    edited March 2023
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,174
    .
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Colourful protest.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    The people's flag is deepest red,
    It shrouded oft our matyred dead...

    Obviously should be washed seperately.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    edited March 2023
    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve no idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    The life expectancy of a woman aged 65 in 1841 was 11.5 years and reached 20.9 years in 2011. For men of the same age it was 10.9 years in 1841 and 18.3 years in 2011. But how has this affected how long pensions need to last?

    In 1908 when the State Pension was first introduced for those aged 70 and over, a woman of this age was expected to live on average an additional 9.3 years, and a man 8.4 years (1901), meaning pensions needed to last around 9 years. However, compare this to the latest figures and we see how pensions need to last longer. The current state pension age for men is 65 and for women it will reach 65 by November 2018. In 2011 men and women at this age were expected to live for approximately 20 more years, meaning we need to make our pensions last more than twice as long as when they were first introduced.




    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/howhaslifeexpectancychangedovertime/2015-09-09

    Also of course the original old age pension was somewhat less than it is now. If memory serves it was 5s a week for a single person and 7/6 for a married couple.

    Admittedly on national income share that was actually slightly more generous than the current state pension, but in terms of its official value it’s less than a sixth of it.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve no idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    That is true.

    However when you have two groups making contrary statements and one of them is a friend and colleague of Boris Johnson, you start with the assumption that that person is less likely to be telling the truth.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,869
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve no idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    That is true.

    However when you have two groups making contrary statements and one of them is a friend and colleague of Boris Johnson, you start with the assumption that that person is less likely to be telling the truth.
    The Easter strike is going to be quite a shutdown.

    Between large numbers on leave for Easter, Ramadan, and decreasing goodwill from staff, it is proving quite hard to cover.

    Parliament isn't sitting, and I am sure that Barclay's constituents could spare him for a day or two next week to have talks, but he seems to prefer confrontation.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309
    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    The people's flag is deepest red,
    It shrouded oft our matyred dead...

    Obviously should be washed seperately.
    A lot of youngsters don't bother to separate (roughly half of millenials and Gen Z)

    https://www.the-sun.com/lifestyle/5085063/doing-laundry-right-way-separate-clothes-symbols/
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

    You're very sweet to link my misquote to laundry but I should have written 'die' not 'dye', right?

  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    edited March 2023
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

    You're very sweet to link my misquote to laundry but I should have written 'die' not 'dye', right?


    Yes. Getting mocked for misspellings is an occupational hazard round these parts

  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,919
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

    You're very sweet to link my misquote to laundry but I should have written 'die' not 'dye', right?

    I believe Caesar was talking about one of the dice of fate, yes indeed.
  • Options
    HeathenerHeathener Posts: 6,309
    A delightful run of malapropisms.

    I shall bid y'all good morning and a pleasant weekend.

    xx
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    The problem is, that isn't a 'settlement.' Because the other side won't accept it. We have the same problem in teaching where the NEU have already rejected a similar 'final' offer and NASUWT will reject it after thinking about it.
  • Options
    FishingFishing Posts: 4,591
    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    The people's flag is deepest red,
    It shrouded oft our matyred dead...

    Obviously should be washed seperately.
    The people’s flag is slightly pink;
    Not as red as most folks think.
    The people's flag is red white blue
    All else is Commie poo.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

    You're very sweet to link my misquote to laundry but I should have written 'die' not 'dye', right?

    John Clare wouldn't have agreed with you.

    Although, TBF he did say his spelling was rubbish.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254
    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    Fishing said:

    IanB2 said:

    Foxy said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    The people's flag is deepest red,
    It shrouded oft our matyred dead...

    Obviously should be washed seperately.
    The people’s flag is slightly pink;
    Not as red as most folks think.
    The people's flag is red white blue
    All else is merely Commie poo.
    Edited for rhythm.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,919
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Isn’t the crime the blackmail, rather than the paying up? And the dishonesty, of course.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    edited March 2023
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,091
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Don't find it hilarious. Means his actual very serious crimes will lose legitimacy.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    He should have paid the escort.

    You don’t pay them for sex, you pay them to go away in the morning - Charlie Sheen?

    Trump apparently has evidence that the lawyer paid Stormy of his own volition, and therefore there’s no campaign finance violation.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,654

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    I find this an odd one. It's a case of whether I *trust* the government or the BMA more. I distrust both.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,525
    edited March 2023
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    But perhaps, once he is indicted on this, with fingerprints and mugshots, others will come forward on the stuff that will send him down for serious time?
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686
    edited March 2023
    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    edited March 2023
    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,930
    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    IanB2 said:

    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and……
    …people’s clothes are all stained and it won’t wash out?

    Julius Caesar, who I believe said it originally, was clearly very sensible to go round already dressed in dark purple.

    You're very sweet to link my misquote to laundry but I should have written 'die' not 'dye', right?

    I believe Caesar was talking about one of the dice of fate, yes indeed.
    Alea as in alea-tory.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    The police photographer will instead of taking a mug shot be taking a shot of a mug...
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    Liquidation of assets at the higher end?
  • Options
    CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 40,930
    Sandpit said:

    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.

    Same here, born late ‘77 and expecting to be at least 69. Not that it’s stopping me paying additional NICs to make up for a decade of working abroad, and saving like crazy with a plan for us to stop full-time work at 60.
    Yes, and worth a reminder that the temporary scheme to relax the restrictions on additional NICs has been extended for a short period AIUI.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
  • Options
    MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,686
    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    Liquidation of assets at the higher end?
    No, it's an income measure not asset wealth.
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,791
    Good morning.

    Given how that last sentence tails off I hope Mike is OK.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,525
    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    That's going to mess with Labour's attack lines...
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    The problem is, that isn't a 'settlement.' Because the other side won't accept it. We have the same problem in teaching where the NEU have already rejected a similar 'final' offer and NASUWT will reject it after thinking about it.
    It’s not a settlement until there’s agreement… it’s a negotiating position. They are trying to frame the structure of any settlement
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    The Trump Organization is still a company. There are still restrictions on what you can spend its money on. And in any case, false accounting and laundering money are crimes.

    I think you're not seeing this very clearly. The issue is not be what happened at the start it's how he responded to it.

    And how will millions of Americans see it? That he paid off a whore and lied to them about it? I think again you need to wonder how this will look to them...
  • Options
    StockyStocky Posts: 9,791
    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    Will disposable income be higher partly due to the governments energy support measures?
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,525
    ydoethur said:

    The police photographer will instead of taking a mug shot be taking a shot of a mug...

    Whatever, it will still be the single most retweeted image of all time....
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    I'm one of those (just) after 1979 and I. expect I'll be waiting until 69 or 70 for my state pension. Not sure I necessarily disagree with it either.

    But, from 60 onwards I shall certainly be working flexibly and part-time, if I can.

    Same here, born late ‘77 and expecting to be at least 69. Not that it’s stopping me paying additional NICs to make up for a decade of working abroad, and saving like crazy with a plan for us to stop full-time work at 60.
    Yes, and worth a reminder that the temporary scheme to relax the restrictions on additional NICs has been extended for a short period AIUI.
    Yes. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/taxpayers-given-more-time-for-voluntary-national-insurance-contributions
    Closes in July, worth doing if you’ve worked abroad or for any other reason taken an NI holiday.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    The French are revolting ? Quelle suprise.
  • Options
    LennonLennon Posts: 1,753
    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    Govt Energy rebate larger than the increase in bills people are seeing?
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    You’re missing the point:

    The NY DA is a fervent Democrat

    He wants to rile up Trump and the GOP base but not take him off the board

    So you choose a minor case like this…

  • Options
    noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 21,384
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    I would expect the most serious of the charges will be some version of tax evasion.

    If the business had profits of $1m, he put through an expense of $100k hush money and therefor paid tax on profits of only $900k, that is a real crime unless he can show that the hush money was primarily for the business rather than his own ego, which is doubtful.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    The problem is, that isn't a 'settlement.' Because the other side won't accept it. We have the same problem in teaching where the NEU have already rejected a similar 'final' offer and NASUWT will reject it after thinking about it.
    It’s not a settlement until there’s agreement… it’s a negotiating position. They are trying to frame the structure of any settlement
    'the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)'

    That precondition is unacceptable to the BMA so they're not willing to negotiate on that basis.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    I find this an odd one. It's a case of whether I *trust* the government or the BMA more. I distrust both.
    That’s an odd word to use.

    I assume that both parties are staking out a position favourable to themselves. I don’t have a dog in this hunt, so don’t have to “trust” or “distrust” either side
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254
    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    The Trump Organization is still a company. There are still restrictions on what you can spend its money on. And in any case, false accounting and laundering money are crimes.

    I think you're not seeing this very clearly. The issue is not be what happened at the start it's how he responded to it.

    And how will millions of Americans see it? That he paid off a whore and lied to them about it? I think again you need to wonder how this will look to them...
    The millions that think this is worthy of sending an ex president (and future candidate) to jail didn't and wouldn’t vote for him. No, it’s an absolute ballsup. If there are far more serious indictments down the line, it’s almost a conspiracy level error to have come out with this one first.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    MaxPB said:

    ydoethur said:

    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    Liquidation of assets at the higher end?
    No, it's an income measure not asset wealth.
    This doesn’t feel like a recession despite the media narrative
  • Options

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    But perhaps, once he is indicted on this, with fingerprints and mugshots, others will come forward on the stuff that will send him down for serious time?
    Rather stupid move on indicting Trump. Simple fact is most Americans think this is politically motivated. And for those who go "no one is above the law", remember in the UK the CPS can decide not to prosecute if it's not in the public interest which covers such events.

    I suspect one of the reasons Joe wants to run again is he is worried he could be in the shit himself. Given one of his ex-associates has said on record Biden received payments from China and Ukraine via the whole Hunter Biden set up, Joe may have his own case to answer

    PS before anyone goes tinfoil etc, you were all proven to be wrong when you claimed the whole Hunter laptop thing was a Russian plot so maybe best not to strain your credibility further.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    You’re missing the point:

    The NY DA is a fervent Democrat

    He wants to rile up Trump and the GOP base but not take him off the board

    So you choose a minor case like this…

    Yes, having partisan politicallly affiliated elected prosecutors is a bad idea. This guy campaigned on finding sh!t on Trump, it’s not a good way to do things, and may have the opposite effect of emboldening Trump’s supporters.
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    I would expect the most serious of the charges will be some version of tax evasion.

    If the business had profits of $1m, he put through an expense of $100k hush money and therefor paid tax on profits of only $900k, that is a real crime unless he can show that the hush money was primarily for the business rather than his own ego, which is doubtful.
    In that scenario I suppose his lawyer could make a case that anything damaging to Trump was damaging to the company and therefore a legitimate use of company funds.

    It falls down a bit when you remember Trump had a reputation for hanging out with various whores and indeed their pimps including traffickers for years. Including Epstein. So it's hard to see how it could damage his reputation further even if she had told all.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,095
    This is one of the days to note that when house prices rise, fall or stay the same it is generally reported as being bad news.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,525
    ydoethur said:

    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...

    Surely on A), it is only proceeds of a crime (blackmail) by Stormy Daniels? I don't see what Trump is guilty of.

    B) and C) may still be applicable.
  • Options
    StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,234
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    In other news it does seem that Steve Barclay has misled Parliament yesterday:

    https://twitter.com/BMA_JuniorDocs/status/1641489891816091657?t=uiFYKJq66N93k3t1r4IhmQ&s=19



    Only if you believe the BMAs position uncritically (as you do).

    I’ve know idea whether it’s a misrepresentation or not. But you are asserting as a fact that Barclay did something wrong based purely on an allegation by his opponents
    The BMA has stated many times that they have put no preconditions of any sort on talks.

    I an not a BMA supporter BTW. I am in the HCSA.
    My understanding is that the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)

    The BMA has said that is unacceptable and that they won’t move from their initial starting position of 35%

    Both are putting preconditions on the meeting - actually both are already negotiating.

    My criticism is not that (although I think the BMA is negotiating poorly). My criticism is that you immediately jumped to Barclay “misleading parliament”
    The problem is, that isn't a 'settlement.' Because the other side won't accept it. We have the same problem in teaching where the NEU have already rejected a similar 'final' offer and NASUWT will reject it after thinking about it.
    It’s not a settlement until there’s agreement… it’s a negotiating position. They are trying to frame the structure of any settlement
    'the government has said that any settlement will only be on a similar basis to other proposals (ie an increase and a one time bonus)'

    That precondition is unacceptable to the BMA so they're not willing to negotiate on that basis.
    And the BMA has said they will only negotiate if the 35% pay rise is on the table.

    That precondition is unacceptable to the government so they’re not willing to negotiate on that basis
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    The Trump Organization is still a company. There are still restrictions on what you can spend its money on. And in any case, false accounting and laundering money are crimes.

    I think you're not seeing this very clearly. The issue is not be what happened at the start it's how he responded to it.

    And how will millions of Americans see it? That he paid off a whore and lied to them about it? I think again you need to wonder how this will look to them...
    The millions that think this is worthy of sending an ex president (and future candidate) to jail didn't and wouldn’t vote for him. No, it’s an absolute ballsup. If there are far more serious indictments down the line, it’s almost a conspiracy level error to have come out with this one first.
    Are you saying New York should ignore a possible crime on the basis Georgia might later indict him for a more serious one? That isn't how the legal system works. States have both autonomy and the duty to prosecute their own crimes.

    Weinstein springs to mind as another example - the more serious charges were actually in California. But New York went ahead, put him on trial and locked him up anyway.

    And *then* he was tried in California.
  • Options
    TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 40,683
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    You think the inflamed boil of Trump supporters wouldn’t erupt if he was indicted for ‘something proper’?
    In any case the proper stuff is mounting up. My fave is the gross orange **** actually on record ordering a state official to find several thousand votes.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    On Trump it is slightly bewildering that the indictment for retention of top secret documents is taking so long. There is no defence to that on the known facts.
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,032
    Heathener said:

    Heathener said:

    Omnisis lol

    Labour 50%
    Cons 27%
    LD 9%

    Labour lead 23%

    Plus ça change, plus c'est la même

    Lab+6, Con -2, LD -1, Gr -1. Also:

    "Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer came storming back as the voter’s choice to be the Prime Minister with an incredible turnaround from last week, when he fell behind for the first time this year:

    Sir Keir Starmer: 41% (+7)
    Rishi Sunak: 29% (-8)
    Don’t Know: 30% (+1)"

    https://www.omnisis.co.uk/polls/corbyn-seen-as-barrier-for-labour-at-next-election-new-poll-suggests/

    I must say it feels very outlierish, as did the previous one showing Labour's lead slumping to 15.
    I'm convinced nothing will change between now and the General Election bar a lot of froth and HYUFD claiming otherwise.

    The dye is cast and people's minds are already made up.

    Labour will win a landslide.
    People said the same this time in 2009 that Cameron would win a landslide
  • Options
    ydoethurydoethur Posts: 68,327

    ydoethur said:

    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...

    Surely on A), it is only proceeds of a crime (blackmail) by Stormy Daniels? I don't see what Trump is guilty of.

    B) and C) may still be applicable.
    If it's money paid for a crime, it's the proceeds of crime and therefore laundering.

    To put it another way, since his correct course of action if she *was* blackmailing him was to have her arrested, and it's ludicrous to suggest he couldn't have done it given his enormous power and wealth, even if he is technically a victim he's made the wrong choices.
  • Options
    moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,254

    ydoethur said:

    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...

    Surely on A), it is only proceeds of a crime (blackmail) by Stormy Daniels? I don't see what Trump is guilty of.

    B) and C) may still be applicable.
    The objection seems to be making the 130grand tax deductible. So he says he was unaware of the payment from his company but is happy to pay 20 grand to correct the record. And in the meantime has rocket boosters put under his campaign.
  • Options
    GhedebravGhedebrav Posts: 3,484
    ydoethur said:

    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...

    This is all true; but as he's grasped from the start, the hardcore MAGAs don't care about truth, criminality or anything; they'd support him if he literally tortured and killed their own children in front of them.

    I still don't think he'll be next president - the normal people outnumber the crackers ones - but there's also a non-zero possibility of genuine armed uprisings and so on; worse than the 6th Jan one.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,986
    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    ydoethur said:

    moonshine said:

    Public figure sleeps with escort. Escort blackmails him for six figures. Public figure seeks to hide that he was blackmailed and goes to jail.

    Is that about it?

    Let's hope so...

    Would be actually hilarious if Trump ended up in jail for one of his lesser crimes.
    Hilarious? Seems like a ridiculously inflammatory move to me. Doesn’t even sound like it should be a crime. Yuuge error not indicting him for something proper rather than this sham.
    If he paid her money not to testify about a crime he had committed, or lied under oath about what he's done, he's committed a crime.

    And remember, as with Al Capone it's not always what they've done but what you can prove at the right moment that counts.
    I don’t have a dog in this race which perhaps means I can see things more clearly than you. Indicting him for giving into blackmail from a prozzer is a Lee Dixon-from-the/halfway-line level own goal by the US establishment. If they don’t have very strong evidence on actual serious crimes then they’ve just opened a pretty dangerous box
    See above.
    It was money from “his” company, not a public company right? You need to consider how this looks to tens of millions of Americans. The ones with the guns unfortunately.
    The Trump Organization is still a company. There are still restrictions on what you can spend its money on. And in any case, false accounting and laundering money are crimes.

    I think you're not seeing this very clearly. The issue is not be what happened at the start it's how he responded to it.

    And how will millions of Americans see it? That he paid off a whore and lied to them about it? I think again you need to wonder how this will look to them...
    The millions that think this is worthy of sending an ex president (and future candidate) to jail didn't and wouldn’t vote for him. No, it’s an absolute ballsup. If there are far more serious indictments down the line, it’s almost a conspiracy level error to have come out with this one first.
    In the UK false accounting for campaign expenditure has sanctions on being able to stand for public office again. No idea if the US is the same but it may be that the penalties here are more significant than they would first appear.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,365
    ydoethur said:

    On checking carefully, the alleged sequence of events is this:

    1) Trump had sex with inter alia Stormy Daniels.
    2) She was preparing a book/TV deal on the subject.
    3) He paid her off instead to stop the details, er, coming out.
    4) However, he embezzled that money from his company and paid it through a false nominee.
    5) Which means he possibly has been blackmailed BUT
    A) therefore that money is the proceeds of a crime and has been laundered
    B )He has taken money improperly from a company
    C) He is guilty of false accounting.

    So in a stroke of sheer genius not given to all men he has turned what could have been a story of him as the victim into a story of he's committed a crime.

    Very Donald Trump...

    I think the issue of the money being secretly used to help his election campaign is also significant - and perhaps a weakness if the case relies on it, Trump could argue that he has paid lots of people off to keep quiet even when he wasn't running for election.

    Trump himself is very litigious - I think out of many the thousands of cases involving Trump, in more than half Trump (or one of his companies) was the plaintiff.

  • Options
    NerysHughesNerysHughes Posts: 3,375
    edited March 2023
    MaxPB said:

    Disposable income increased in Q4 by 1.3% and looks set to go up again in Q1. Something, somewhere doesn't add up. Either people's pay rises are a lot higher than is being measured or real inflation for households is lower than is being measured.

    That certainly matches up with my ridiculed anecdotal thoughts from a month ago. Discretionary spending seems to be robust..
  • Options
    HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 118,032

    The U.K. is far from an outlier.


    Indeed, Macron got it through with support from French Conservatives who did not join Melenchon and Le Pen's blocks to vote down his government
This discussion has been closed.