nteresting listening to Ken Clarke R4 this morning. He couldn’t understand why Blair was in the Labour Party. He also said that "if anyone else had won the election they would have repealed Thatcher’s legislation, but Blair was a Thatcherite. He’s in charge of Labour again now".
Ken Clarke would be a LD now
Ken Clarke is a Tory. The only reason you want to paint him as a Liberal is because whatever you and yours are, it isn't Conservative.
Of course he is, but @HYUFD likes to label decent conservatives who do not support his right-wing views as non conservative when in truth he is a de facto RefUK with pro Farage, Johnson and Trump supporter
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
The rule of thumb is you can take 4-5% out of your pension pot capital value. So for an income of £20k you would need a pot of £800k to £1m. My private pension pot as a well paid private sector employee will be at best half that. I spotted the gap 20 years ago and had been saving an additional 10% of my income into an ISA, which in fact was performing better than my pension fund (tellingly) and would have been about enough to bridge the gap by 65. Unfortunately the ex-Mrs PJH has taken that and I'm back to square 1. But I would say that based on my experience at current prices starting now you need to save at least £10k a year for it to grow into a big enough pot over 40 years for a modestly comfortable lifestyle in retirement. And that assumes you own your own home outright by then.
surely 4%-5% of 1 Million is 40K - 50K, so you would need half your pot estimate?
Revealed: The board of NatWest Group is meeting now to determine the future of Dame Alison Rose, its CEO, after she admitted disclosing inappropriate information to a BBC journalist. It’s expected that she will step down although no final decision has been taken. More soon.
Can Farage spin this moment of renewed relevance into a political revival? Does he even want to? What's his motive in all this?
No, and no, is my guess
But a hefty win in a libel court and a pleasing victory over the Woke Remoaners: Yes
Not sure of the basis for Libel. The report suggested members of the public perceived him as a liar and a racist and a grifter. It didn't claim he was.
That can still constitute libel. Did you think it was unactionable to say "Others say Mr X is a liar"? I strongly doubt he'll sue, though. Generally it's sensible not to. If he did he'd have to be super-confident of victory on proper advice and they'd settle.
What's his motive? I guess he wants somewhere to bank, as most of us do, but more than that? Reform UK will be totally irrelevant in the next election IMO. So it isn't that. As I've said before, perhaps he's got snow on his boots. He wouldn't be the only far right figure in western Europe about whom that has been suggested. And he seems to have damaged the City a bit. Even a year and a half into the war the City still handles an awful lot of Russian-in-origin money. Who knows what the next chapter in that story will be? Perhaps this is an early chapter.
Even without any Russian considerations, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's not batting for someone else to some extent or at least being used. He'd be brave to take on the BBC single-handed.
If Britain weren't so full of royalist lickspittles, the fact that the royal family's bankers took exception to him disrespecting the then Prince of Wales for receiving a million euros in cash in a suitcase handed to him by a Qatari prince wouldn't be allowed to plummet down the memory hole.
And the left would make the following extremely obvious point: the City, not wanting to handle dirty people's money - talk about taking the f***ing piss!
No one in banking gives a crap about a spat between two clients. Professionals stay out of that. Blank face with a smile. Oh, and collect your fee.
What if one of the clients is now the king and the bank gets a call from the king's palace saying your other client dissed the king something rotten and he's most displeased?
We know Coutts are bankers to the royal family, and we know they cited Nigel Farage's tweet in which he insulted the now king for accepting loads of Qatari cash in a suitcase as reason for cracking down on Farage's account.
Different rules apply in Britain for the royal family. Any matter concerning the head of state is a matter of state.
We are not Saudi Arabia but a constitutional not absolute monarchy
Oh? Why do you then bleat about treason every time someone talks about throwing an egg at the King on walkabout?
As that is an assault under UK law and battery if it hits
(a) No such thing as UK law for that purpose.
(b) The local variant is relevant.
(c) But that is not the same as treason, unless you want to claim it is, and you sure did before.
Yes there is in England and Scotland.
Different legislation. Different terminology. For instance, 'assault and battery' (your wording) doesn't exist in Scotland, and neither does GBH.
Assault is illegal in Scotland, as is aggravated assault and reckless injury
But not UK law, which is what you said.
You want to be taken seriously: present accurate evidence. Not something made up on the spot to suit your views.
HYUFD rapidly educating himself on Wiki after shooting off some low information guff about a subject is one of the joys of PB.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
The rule of thumb is you can take 4-5% out of your pension pot capital value. So for an income of £20k you would need a pot of £800k to £1m. My private pension pot as a well paid private sector employee will be at best half that. I spotted the gap 20 years ago and had been saving an additional 10% of my income into an ISA, which in fact was performing better than my pension fund (tellingly) and would have been about enough to bridge the gap by 65. Unfortunately the ex-Mrs PJH has taken that and I'm back to square 1. But I would say that based on my experience at current prices starting now you need to save at least £10k a year for it to grow into a big enough pot over 40 years for a modestly comfortable lifestyle in retirement. And that assumes you own your own home outright by then.
surely 4%-5% of 1 Million is 40K - 50K, so you would need half your pot estimate?
D'oh - of course. Changed my mind about the pension value and forgot to edit the pot size. Of course!
WRT Spain, I don't see how it advantages PSOE to cling on to government, with the backing of some pretty unpleasant people, when, despite doing better than expected, the results show quite a big swing against the left.
If Ted Heath, or Gordon Brown had managed to cobble together a coalition in 1974 or 2010, they'd have been at the mercy of any MP with a grudge, and would have finished up going down to a bad defeat.
Two reasons why it advantages them: 1. Being in government means you push your agenda. And they picked up both votes and seats vs last time. 2. Being in government keeps out the Vox extremists. They have normalised having (very very) progressive policies and even having nationalists and ex-terrorists in government. And been rewarded for it. What they don't want to allow is the hard right also being normalised.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
By increasing the retirement age (it's 67 now and will be 68 soon?) they are doing this, albeit slowly. My headcanon says things will even out about 2040, but it is going to be skewed until then
I seem to recall some small discussion of this policy in France.
In the usual calm, measured French fashion. Literally some people survived.
Labour once used to be a proud ally of LGBTQ people.
That is no longer true and it will be up to whoever replaces Keir Starmer to rebuild relationships with the LGBTQ community, because he can never be trusted on this, as so much else, ever again.
Yet Sunak and BigG are turning their backs. Crisis, What Crisis?
I am not turning my back
Climate change is happening but actions to mitigate it have to be proportionate and affordable to the citizens of the UK
Either we spend money now or we spend much more later, to less effect. The Tories are repeating the same old mistakes of doing too little, too late. They would still have children down the mines if they hadn't been dragged into the modern world.
I am not sure if you are aware but there is no money to borrow, indeed Starmer recognises this and has dropped his 28 billion annual green spend from his offer to the UK
None of this is easy and certainly I support all reasonable steps to move to net zero but not at any cost
"there is no money to borrow" is painfully wrong. There is a huge amount of capital looking for good things to invest in, and sovereign states with major economies can always find money to invest if there is a return on the investment.
The major problem in the UK is that 40 years of Thatcherism means that "investment" is seen as "subsidy" or worse "socialism" - money lost, not money invested. Which is why this country is so shitty.
The tragedy to "there is no money to borrow" is that you clearly imply that the alternative is no cost. It is not. Unless we start investing in "green crap" the cost in *not* doing so will be huge. So why not spend money on prevention, rather than on mitigation? Either way we spend the money.
I would have said the key problem with 'investment' as a political word is that Brown used it passim ad nauseam when he actually meant 'current spending.' A very different concept which needs a different funding model. His sleight of hand left us with far too much unfunded debt.
And unfortunately discredited both genuine investment and current spending as concepts.
It isn't just government. Business has the same disease. Why invest for your medium and long-term growth when you can make a bomb tomorrow selling the company for a huge personal payout?
Capitalism is simple. Borrow. Invest. Deliver a return on the investment. Sell stuff. Buy more stuff. Sell more stuff. Invest to sell a lot more stuff. But we have largely stopped bothering.
The economic Thatcherism of the last 40 years has conditioned business not to look long term. And an army of city spivs encouraged by Treasury keep pushing them to look at selling their business now for a profit tomorrow - who cares about the future when you personally could be *rich*. With a nice fat commission for the spiv intermediary of course.
FFS Rochdale the woman died years ago. In the intervening 30+ years we have had several generations of politicians who could have changed anything they wanted and in some cases did. Move on.
But all agree she was a 'transformational' PM, ie she brought about not your common or garden change, but a transformation. And transformations tend to last a long time. Indeed they almost have to in order to merit the name.
I have never put any thought into the phrase 'common or garden' and it looks weird when I see it written down. I hear it and say it as commonergarden. But then I am an idiot.
You might well be right. Probably are. I didn't check, just wrote it as it came.
It’s “common or garden” in the sense of a plant or bird
Labour once used to be a proud ally of LGBTQ people.
That is no longer true and it will be up to whoever replaces Keir Starmer to rebuild relationships with the LGBTQ community, because he can never be trusted on this, as so much else, ever again.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
Isn't the state pension almost impossible to live off anyway?
IIRC, the state pension was introduced by Lloyd George with the enthusiastic support of Winston Churchill, back in the good old days when they were both members of the last Liberal Government.
But back to today's gloomy reality.... How much would one need to save up during a lifetime of work, in order to have enough for a "decent pension"?
How much would one need to put aside each year in order to have enough to fund such a pension?
And what happens to those who are not earning enough to do this?
Short snappy Tory answer.... Get a better job.... Become a rip-off investment banker like me. Yah!
A brief reminder of why pensions were introduced for those who DID manage to become rip-off investment bankers...
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
Tough titty. Work longer.
Retiring completely at a relatively young and healthy age isn't a Right, probably isn't good for your health and the State doesn't owe you a living.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
Tough titty. Work longer.
Is "Tough titty" the new "Bollocks" for PB Tories wanting to avoid sexual discrimination while using references to body parts as a substitute for reason?
Labour once used to be a proud ally of LGBTQ people.
That is no longer true and it will be up to whoever replaces Keir Starmer to rebuild relationships with the LGBTQ community, because he can never be trusted on this, as so much else, ever again.
If you look at a tweet and have not logged into twitter then the replies and earlier entries in the thread may be absent. This displays the full thread)
One of the biggest political scandals of the century; SKS hires Martin Forde to carry out root & branch inquiry into the Labour Party, Forde finds party is riddled with racists & scumbags, & SKS does nothing. The racists, the scumbags, they're still there.
Now we add a whippersnapper to the PLP with antiquated views about women
SKS's cess pit
What is the antiquated view avout women now, that they can be hung like a donkey or that they can't?
FWIW, I think this ill-advised and will be about as effective as the "Rishi Sunak doesn't.." posters Starmer tried to pull.
I don't like the Labour Party, nor do I share its values, but sticking it in the same sentence as criminal gangs is appalling.
I'm not sure what the focus groups and polling shows on this but it's pretty repellent stuff and since it's not subtle, measured nor sincere it won't work for either of them.
I hope you're right, but isn't the Anglosphere experience that unsubtle, unmeasured, repellent stuff actually works remarkably well?
I'm not sure. This isn't him and comes across as desperation.
What people want is for Sunak to take the fight to Labour in a way that's genuine for him and reflects his values and vision.
"Plan A was to look competent, managerial, the steady-handed former chancellor steering the ship of state out of turbulent waters. That hasn’t worked. Plan B is increasingly deranged attacks on Labour as allies of eco-fanaticism and, in the case of immigration policy, accomplices to the criminal gangs that smuggle migrants across the Channel.
The problem is that Sunak’s personal brand has already been shaped around plan A. The shiny image is now tarnished, but activating plan B will only contaminate it further with inauthenticity and the whiff of desperation."
Don't try and drop the gleeful left-wing self-congratulatory propaganda on me.
Sunak is great and is doing a good job. I just think this is the wrong play, that's all.
The dodgy little shit is 23 points behind in the polls. What would not doing a good job look like?
It would look like CR accepting that he was wrong to foist the hopeless git on us - file under not happening.
I'm 41, and it would affect me, but I basically think HMG should phase out the state pension.
It's essentially a UBI for anyone over 66 and is increasingly unaffordable. Spend the c.£125bn on 40-50bn of tax cuts and 75bn on extra funding for science, R&D and education both minor and adult. It would set our public finances on a sustainable footing for the very long term and also invest in productivity and things that mattered.
Over a 50+ year career people should be able to save and make provision for themselves, and there can be a income support safety net for the truly destitute.
That is probably the silliest assertion I have seen in a long while, over a 50year career at minimum wage which many will be on all their lives the value of their pension pot will buy an annuity south of 5k. I have worked all my life and not on min wage and I certainly would not be able to afford to live on my private pension. I doubt most in the bottom 70% could.
Tough titty. Work longer.
Retiring completely at a relatively young and healthy age isn't a Right, probably isn't good for your health and the State doesn't owe you a living.
So in other words only the top 20% can ever retire....just wow no wonder you tories are seen as a bunch of twats.
Firstly most of those unable to retire won't be sitting on their fat arse all day doing office work like those that could afford to retire.
Secondly who the hell is going to be employing all these 70 years olds. Hard enough to get a new job if you lose yours in your late 50's let alone in your 60's and 70's.
What do you expect all those that never earn enough to retire yet can't find work or physically no longer capable of work to do? Die quietly in a gutter no doubt.
Comments
1. Being in government means you push your agenda. And they picked up both votes and seats vs last time.
2. Being in government keeps out the Vox extremists. They have normalised having (very very) progressive policies and even having nationalists and ex-terrorists in government. And been rewarded for it. What they don't want to allow is the hard right also being normalised.
It's not the Victorian era anymore.
Retiring completely at a relatively young and healthy age isn't a Right, probably isn't good for your health and the State doesn't owe you a living.
https://nitter.net/OwenJones84/status/1684145818620633089
If you look at a tweet and have not logged into twitter then the replies and earlier entries in the thread may be absent. This displays the full thread)
Firstly most of those unable to retire won't be sitting on their fat arse all day doing office work like those that could afford to retire.
Secondly who the hell is going to be employing all these 70 years olds. Hard enough to get a new job if you lose yours in your late 50's let alone in your 60's and 70's.
What do you expect all those that never earn enough to retire yet can't find work or physically no longer capable of work to do? Die quietly in a gutter no doubt.