How the hell can you sprint so hard for the last 1% of a 10km race, totally mad. Congrats to Cheptegei on three consecutive golds in the event, aged only 26.
Next up, the big one. Which will be all over in less than ten seconds!
When Mo Farah won the Olympic 10k with a last last of what I think was 59 seconds, Andy Murray commented that he did single laps as part of his own training and that 59 seconds was his personal best.
We often lament about posters who disappear, but I think AM was a genuine loss to the site.
Agreed. Anyone know why he left? He was prolific, then seemingly disappeared overnight.
Yes I remember it well. Seems for each poster who leaves there's a very different reason, no theme. Eg Leon, just the other day, it was triggered by a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Bartholomew Roberts. Whereas with Mr Meeks it was after a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Philip Thompson.
I’ve been here a couple of years and Leon has left a few times. A cheap dig at @BartholomewRoberts doesnt mean he’s the one who drove them off the site. Whereas we know some posters have actually driven members off the site. Like Charles.
Although I do get your point, Charles's complaint was that somebody mentioned a family member, despite the fact that it was Charles who had named them in the first place. I am happy to keep the privacy of commentators, as witnessed by my treatment of @Miklosvar, but others may not be so ethical.
He thought he'd been outed, which would certainly be beyond the pale if true.
I can think of only one instance of this before on this Site. The culprit was the late Plato, and that led to the departure of an excellent poster.
It's surprising it doesn't happen more often, which is a tribute to the standard of posters here, as well as the mods and the managers.
[Btw, have just answered your private message.]
Charles never shrunk from telling us about his family so one poster told him about his (Charles') family and Charles wasn't happy so off he fucked.
Charles' departure was a loss to the site. There aren't many old-school Tories left. Just the aspirational sort with over-wide lapels.
He only posted about his first class flights , fancy hotels , air miles and California / London mansions. Not one I miss for sure.
That is, um, misleading at best. He posted on a great many things and was certainly an asset to the site. I am sorry he is no longer around. Just like many other posters. Socrates, Alistair Meeks, Tim and dozens of others. Some I agreed with, others - like Tim and AM - I very much disagreed with but they were all asets to the site as they had their own unique perspectives on things.
This site is the poorer when people feel they can no longer participate.
Not my recollection Richard and there was no reason for him to leave.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
But how much are you paying into your pension? Levels of contribution by public sector workers are no longer trivial. I pay more net into my supposedly non-contributory defined-benefit pension than my private sector employed wife who earns a comparable amount pays into hers. And what’s more those retiring now are still gaining most of their pension from the classic PCSPS, which is based on final salary hence after 13 years of austerity and tiny pay settlements it has been hugely eroded, because there is no inflationary adjustment and salaries for many long serving staff have barely increased in that time.
The pension was always sold in the civil service as a part of your package. It recognised that by working in the public sector you might earn less than you might in the private sector but you were guaranteed a decent retirement. They need to offer better terms to attract policy and technical specialists, and given working in the civil service can be every bit as high pressure as the private sector and much less well paid, this is fair.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
No, that's what I mean - I do see it as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others in the public sector think we are badly off. Though I think it's probably easier in my area to get a job in the private sector, so maybe we do recognise it really.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
But how much are you paying into your pension? Levels of contribution by public sector workers are no longer trivial. I pay more net into my supposedly non-contributory defined-benefit pension than my private sector employed wife who earns a comparable amount pays into hers. And what’s more those retiring now are still gaining most of their pension from the classic PCSPS, which is based on final salary hence after 13 years of austerity and tiny pay settlements it has been hugely eroded, because there is no inflationary adjustment and salaries for many long serving staff have barely increased in that time.
The pension was always sold in the civil service as a part of your package. It recognised that by working in the public sector you might earn less than you might in the private sector but you were guaranteed a decent retirement. They need to offer better terms to attract policy and technical specialists, and given working in the civil service can be every bit as high pressure as the private sector and much less well paid, this is fair.
As a total in pounds I am paying in more than a lot of people that are going to get twice my pension, yes as a percent I may be paying less. Still remains my taxes are paying for the pensions of people that are paying in less pounds but getting twice my pension. Frankly I don't think the majority of private sector workers are going to be able to afford to retire. I am ten years off and I am looking at what I will get and thinking I cannot live on it
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
Really? I'd say this site is more centrist than when I joined several years ago. It was much more pro-Tory then and for a time it was only me and about three others that were remotely pro-Labour/left.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
We often lament about posters who disappear, but I think AM was a genuine loss to the site.
Agreed. Anyone know why he left? He was prolific, then seemingly disappeared overnight.
Yes I remember it well. Seems for each poster who leaves there's a very different reason, no theme. Eg Leon, just the other day, it was triggered by a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Bartholomew Roberts. Whereas with Mr Meeks it was after a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Philip Thompson.
I’ve been here a couple of years and Leon has left a few times. A cheap dig at @BartholomewRoberts doesnt mean he’s the one who drove them off the site. Whereas we know some posters have actually driven members off the site. Like Charles.
Although I do get your point, Charles's complaint was that somebody mentioned a family member, despite the fact that it was Charles who had named them in the first place. I am happy to keep the privacy of commentators, as witnessed by my treatment of @Miklosvar, but others may not be so ethical.
He thought he'd been outed, which would certainly be beyond the pale if true.
I can think of only one instance of this before on this Site. The culprit was the late Plato, and that led to the departure of an excellent poster.
It's surprising it doesn't happen more often, which is a tribute to the standard of posters here, as well as the mods and the managers.
[Btw, have just answered your private message.]
Charles never shrunk from telling us about his family so one poster told him about his (Charles') family and Charles wasn't happy so off he fucked.
Charles' departure was a loss to the site. There aren't many old-school Tories left. Just the aspirational sort with over-wide lapels.
He only posted about his first class flights , fancy hotels , air miles and California / London mansions. Not one I miss for sure.
That is, um, misleading at best. He posted on a great many things and was certainly an asset to the site. I am sorry he is no longer around. Just like many other posters. Socrates, Alistair Meeks, Tim and dozens of others. Some I agreed with, others - like Tim and AM - I very much disagreed with but they were all asets to the site as they had their own unique perspectives on things.
This site is the poorer when people feel they can no longer participate.
I am glad you are back to thinking people can be assets. You spent some time implying that me and others were not wanted here.
Nope. Never done that at all. I have at times said your comments are pointless but the only time we ever really fell out was over your personal attacks on others. Asa I remember I was drawing the comparison between the support some of us gave you over your own personal demaons and the fact you did not extend that same courtesy and support to others.
I did a seven hour shift today. I like working Sundays; it's an easy day's work: like being an Amazon driver - no heavy bags of mail to carry while walking miles
What has started to annoy me a little bit about it is how many people say, "I didn't know Royal Mail worked Sundays!"
It's not annoying for anything of itself, just that I hear it so often and I'm bored of saying "oh yes we do"
Today (when it was said to me fifteen to twenty times) I decided on a different response: I told them all, in my poshest voice, that RM doesn't; I'm just an eccentric millionaire who does this for fun at the weekend
Every single person I said it to laughed heartily. I'm going to stick with it
I'm sure there's work done but there's no actual delivery on Sunday, is there?
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
The site is reasonably representative of the country, albeit a tilt to the older, maler portion of it that likes to talk about politics online.
As it's older, it's slightly more Tory than average.
The one distortion is probably many more Liberals than average. Both as in liberal Conservative/liberal Labour, as well as Liberal Democrats.
In 2019 the country overwhelmingly wanted Tories to win/Labour to lose, so the site reasonably reflected that. If anything the site represented the "despite Boris" Tories possibly more than the country as a whole.
By next time I think the site will reflect a desire to replace the Tories (it does currently) if no particular love for the Opposition other than by default, which is the current position of the country.
Nope. Never done that at all. I have at times said your comments are pointless but the only time we ever really fell out was over your personal attacks on others. Asa I remember I was drawing the comparison between the support some of us gave you over your own personal demaons and the fact you did not extend that same courtesy and support to others.
Well that was how I took it. And I don't feel my posts are pointless just because you happen to disagree with them. I don't think any of your posts are pointless even if I disagree with most of them.
As for the highlighted bit, I can only apologise if that was how it came across as it was not my intention. I can only apologise for any hurt caused.
There is one particular user who likes to try and pretend they understand my mental state and to tell me what I have. I find this incredibly irritating and that is when I tend to fly off the handle. I am trying my best to just ignore them going forward.
Late to the thread, in which case apologies if this has already been commented on.
Given the closing comments, on the polling margin for the vague and value-laden term "independence" being narrow, it should be noted that the margin for Scotland remaining in or leaving the UK is not.
i.e. the wording "Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?" produced a margin of 17% in favour of remaining in the UK (37% to 54%), when last asked at the start of the year.
I am sure that the Nats would claim that this result is influenced by the association of "remain" with Brexit but the fact is that the wording is as clear as day. But to get over any objection to the use of "remain", the following could be used and I am pretty sure would produce a near identical result: "Should Scotland stay as part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?"
Cameron made a huge mistake by allowing the SNP to dictate the terms and wording of the 2014 referendum, as have subsequent PMs in continuing to allow the debate on secession to be framed in terms of "independence".
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
The truth is, people come and people go. Nothing wrong with that.
I find there are those who are prepared to engage in debate and those who are simply here to provoke a response.
The provocateurs like to stir things up by putting up a view which they know will enrage a few and get the debate flowing. Oddly enough, while they'll respond to the angry posts (often by doubling down on the original view) posts which often a reasoned rebuttal are ignored because, in truth, provocateurs are very poor at debate.
There is a wealth, breadth and depth of knowledge and experience on here - the problem with that is subjects become debates between experts from which most are excluded by virtue of their lack of knowledge. Even then, experiences on particular topics seem far from uniform or consistent.
It's been a remarkable decade or so - the EU Referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum, three general elections, COVID - the rise and fall (and rise ?) of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. It's been unusual for there to be nothing to debate or discuss - perhaps we may be entering a quieter time (though I doubt it).
I'd also put up the long period of centre-right ascendency in Britain is coming to an end - for most of PB's life, the Conservatives have been dominant and often popular while Labour has been weak and often unpopular. That may be changing and it may be the views of the centre-right will cease to resonate as they have done and new viewpoints, not well represented to date on PB, will come through - it will be interesting to see what will happen if Labour do win a substantial victory next year.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the state wants to employ too many people to do too much, not all efficiently.
There are millions more working for the public sector than there were in the past.
A lot of public sector jobs are jobs that are very valuable and needed, but not all are. If the state were to do less, it could do it with fewer people.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
We often lament about posters who disappear, but I think AM was a genuine loss to the site.
Agreed. Anyone know why he left? He was prolific, then seemingly disappeared overnight.
Yes I remember it well. Seems for each poster who leaves there's a very different reason, no theme. Eg Leon, just the other day, it was triggered by a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Bartholomew Roberts. Whereas with Mr Meeks it was after a prolonged and harrowing exchange with Philip Thompson.
I’ve been here a couple of years and Leon has left a few times. A cheap dig at @BartholomewRoberts doesnt mean he’s the one who drove them off the site. Whereas we know some posters have actually driven members off the site. Like Charles.
Although I do get your point, Charles's complaint was that somebody mentioned a family member, despite the fact that it was Charles who had named them in the first place. I am happy to keep the privacy of commentators, as witnessed by my treatment of @Miklosvar, but others may not be so ethical.
He thought he'd been outed, which would certainly be beyond the pale if true.
I can think of only one instance of this before on this Site. The culprit was the late Plato, and that led to the departure of an excellent poster.
It's surprising it doesn't happen more often, which is a tribute to the standard of posters here, as well as the mods and the managers.
[Btw, have just answered your private message.]
Charles never shrunk from telling us about his family so one poster told him about his (Charles') family and Charles wasn't happy so off he fucked.
Charles' departure was a loss to the site. There aren't many old-school Tories left. Just the aspirational sort with over-wide lapels.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Late to the thread, in which case apologies if this has already been commented on.
Given the closing comments, on the polling margin for the vague and value-laden term "independence" being narrow, it should be noted that the margin for Scotland remaining in or leaving the UK is not.
i.e. the wording "Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?" produced a margin of 17% in favour of remaining in the UK (37% to 54%), when last asked at the start of the year.
I am sure that the Nats would claim that this result is influenced by the association of "remain" with Brexit but the fact is that the wording is as clear as day. But to get over any objection to the use of "remain", the following could be used and I am pretty sure would produce a near identical result: "Should Scotland stay as part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?"
Cameron made a huge mistake by allowing the SNP to dictate the terms and wording of the 2014 referendum, as have subsequent PMs in continuing to allow the debate on secession to be framed in terms of "independence".
Of course Cameron was said to have learnt not to go with Yes/No and went Remain/Leave for the EU referendum to boost the Remain side.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Has anyone watched the Netflix documentary on Jimmy Saville?
How on Earth has King Charles not been held to account for what has happened? I cannot believe he wasn't aware of what was going on. He used to ask Saville for PR advice!
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
The truth is, people come and people go. Nothing wrong with that.
I find there are those who are prepared to engage in debate and those who are simply here to provoke a response.
The provocateurs like to stir things up by putting up a view which they know will enrage a few and get the debate flowing. Oddly enough, while they'll respond to the angry posts (often by doubling down on the original view) posts which often a reasoned rebuttal are ignored because, in truth, provocateurs are very poor at debate.
There is a wealth, breadth and depth of knowledge and experience on here - the problem with that is subjects become debates between experts from which most are excluded by virtue of their lack of knowledge. Even then, experiences on particular topics seem far from uniform or consistent.
It's been a remarkable decade or so - the EU Referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum, three general elections, COVID - the rise and fall (and rise ?) of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. It's been unusual for there to be nothing to debate or discuss - perhaps we may be entering a quieter time (though I doubt it).
I'd also put up the long period of centre-right ascendency in Britain is coming to an end - for most of PB's life, the Conservatives have been dominant and often popular while Labour has been weak and often unpopular. That may be changing and it may be the views of the centre-right will cease to resonate as they have done and new viewpoints, not well represented to date on PB, will come through - it will be interesting to see what will happen if Labour do win a substantial victory next year.
There may be a tie-in here with PB's overwhelmingly male majority. It was only in 2017 that females proportionally began to vote Labour more than men. The recent YouGov suggests this is widening fast and becoming a nascent political cleavage to rival age. Which may partially explain PB scepticism about a Labour victory. Despite months of c.20% leads. The dominant PB demographic (male, predominantly 50+, well above average income) simply hasn't shown anything like those swings. So is dubious they exist at all.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
There have been very few Johnson enthusiasts here. But some ultra-anti-Johnsonites percieve anything less than constant furious criticism of Johnson as being pro-Boris.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Here in Outer London we are all enthralled with the countdown to ULEZ and whether it leads to Sidcup deciding to secede from Greater London to Kent.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
There have been very few Johnson enthusiasts here. But some ultra-anti-Johnsonites percieve anything less than constant furious criticism of Johnson as being pro-Boris.
I think I'm not as anti-Johnson here but I do maintain that this site was pro-Tory/pro-Johnson much more than it was pro-Labour until well until partygate. Now it has swung back to the centre.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Yes, this is the Phoney war in more ways than one.
It will liven up in conference season, and very much more in the Spring. Election fever tends to bring new posters, as it did me in 2010, though a fair few disappear at the close of polling on GE night.
PB on election night is the place to be, as its analysis is often way ahead of the other media. I have done some successful reverse ferrets on the night a few times based on analyses here.
Late to the thread, in which case apologies if this has already been commented on.
Given the closing comments, on the polling margin for the vague and value-laden term "independence" being narrow, it should be noted that the margin for Scotland remaining in or leaving the UK is not.
i.e. the wording "Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?" produced a margin of 17% in favour of remaining in the UK (37% to 54%), when last asked at the start of the year.
I am sure that the Nats would claim that this result is influenced by the association of "remain" with Brexit but the fact is that the wording is as clear as day. But to get over any objection to the use of "remain", the following could be used and I am pretty sure would produce a near identical result: "Should Scotland stay as part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?"
Cameron made a huge mistake by allowing the SNP to dictate the terms and wording of the 2014 referendum, as have subsequent PMs in continuing to allow the debate on secession to be framed in terms of "independence".
Good point. “Leave or Remain” was the wording that the Electoral Commission considered to be the most impartial way of putting such a question. “Yes or No” was Alex Salmond’s preferred way of phrasing the question, which was somehow agreed to by David Cameron.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Wasn't @Miklosvar banned because yet again for having a slightly different view of Ukraine he was called a Russian plant?
This site does operate as a bit of a hive-mind at times.
No. There are a number of posters on here who follow a pro-Russian, or at least a more neutral, position and they are not banned. Dura-Ace is one example that springs to mind.
But crossing a line by ignoring repeated warnings not to make personal attacks on posters is pretty much gauranteed to get you banned. For clarity, I suspect it is not necesarily the personal attacks but ignoring the warnings that result in the departure.
I think DA is very much anti-Russian, but far too cool to admit it. He has an instinct to always explain why something cannot be done in Ukraine. But still the best person to listen to on all matters Russian/military.
I did a seven hour shift today. I like working Sundays; it's an easy day's work: like being an Amazon driver - no heavy bags of mail to carry while walking miles
What has started to annoy me a little bit about it is how many people say, "I didn't know Royal Mail worked Sundays!"
It's not annoying for anything of itself, just that I hear it so often and I'm bored of saying "oh yes we do"
Today (when it was said to me fifteen to twenty times) I decided on a different response: I told them all, in my poshest voice, that RM doesn't; I'm just an eccentric millionaire who does this for fun at the weekend
Every single person I said it to laughed heartily. I'm going to stick with it
I'm sure there's work done but there's no actual delivery on Sunday, is there?
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
It's not my fault that the government has spent all my 30 years of pensions contributions, currently over £1000 a month, rather than kept it in a pension fund.
Until a year or two ago the NHS Superannuation was a net receipt for the taxpayer.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Wasn't @Miklosvar banned because yet again for having a slightly different view of Ukraine he was called a Russian plant?
This site does operate as a bit of a hive-mind at times.
No. There are a number of posters on here who follow a pro-Russian, or at least a more neutral, position and they are not banned. Dura-Ace is one example that springs to mind.
But crossing a line by ignoring repeated warnings not to make personal attacks on posters is pretty much gauranteed to get you banned. For clarity, I suspect it is not necesarily the personal attacks but ignoring the warnings that result in the departure.
I think DA is very much anti-Russian, but far too cool to admit it. He has an instinct to always explain why something cannot be done in Ukraine. But still the best person to listen to on all matters Russian/military.
More anti-Putin than anti-Russian. His wife is Russian, and by taking in Ukranian refugees he has made a real statement, far more than an armchair warrior like me.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
There were one or two posters who, when Ukraine made their big breakthroughs, earlier, lost their bonhomie and were noticeably terse and cranky.
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Which is the same pay-as-you-go system as every (I think) other country in Europe, except that the UK has:
1 - relatively low liabilities due to our public / private pension system, and anomalously low state pensions. 2 - a stronger demographic structure than most. 3 - a system we adjusting early, starting the process of increasing our pension ages during the *Major* administration with the Pensions Act 1995.
Is any other Western European country in as resilient a position?
I'm not really sure why you are declaring Armageddon.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Wasn't @Miklosvar banned because yet again for having a slightly different view of Ukraine he was called a Russian plant?
This site does operate as a bit of a hive-mind at times.
No. There are a number of posters on here who follow a pro-Russian, or at least a more neutral, position and they are not banned. Dura-Ace is one example that springs to mind.
But crossing a line by ignoring repeated warnings not to make personal attacks on posters is pretty much gauranteed to get you banned. For clarity, I suspect it is not necesarily the personal attacks but ignoring the warnings that result in the departure.
I think DA is very much anti-Russian, but far too cool to admit it. He has an instinct to always explain why something cannot be done in Ukraine. But still the best person to listen to on all matters Russian/military.
More anti-Putin than anti-Russian. His wife is Russian, and by taking in Ukranian refugees he has made a real statement, far more than an armchair warrior like me.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
During the tail end of the Brown government, my impression was that there were a lot of Tory astroturfers on pb. And there's a word you don't hear much nowadays.
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Is there a contractual obligation to pay them, or can a future government simply legislate them away (like the state pension)?
If so, that's quite a source of uncertainty, particularly given the *interesting* fiscal outlook.
The truth is, people come and people go. Nothing wrong with that.
I find there are those who are prepared to engage in debate and those who are simply here to provoke a response.
The provocateurs like to stir things up by putting up a view which they know will enrage a few and get the debate flowing. Oddly enough, while they'll respond to the angry posts (often by doubling down on the original view) posts which often a reasoned rebuttal are ignored because, in truth, provocateurs are very poor at debate.
There is a wealth, breadth and depth of knowledge and experience on here - the problem with that is subjects become debates between experts from which most are excluded by virtue of their lack of knowledge. Even then, experiences on particular topics seem far from uniform or consistent.
It's been a remarkable decade or so - the EU Referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum, three general elections, COVID - the rise and fall (and rise ?) of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. It's been unusual for there to be nothing to debate or discuss - perhaps we may be entering a quieter time (though I doubt it).
I'd also put up the long period of centre-right ascendency in Britain is coming to an end - for most of PB's life, the Conservatives have been dominant and often popular while Labour has been weak and often unpopular. That may be changing and it may be the views of the centre-right will cease to resonate as they have done and new viewpoints, not well represented to date on PB, will come through - it will be interesting to see what will happen if Labour do win a substantial victory next year.
There may be a tie-in here with PB's overwhelmingly male majority. It was only in 2017 that females proportionally began to vote Labour more than men. The recent YouGov suggests this is widening fast and becoming a nascent political cleavage to rival age. Which may partially explain PB scepticism about a Labour victory. Despite months of c.20% leads. The dominant PB demographic (male, predominantly 50+, well above average income) simply hasn't shown anything like those swings. So is dubious they exist at all.
That's an interesting point. Last Monday's Redfield & Wilton had a 20-point Labour lead but that was based on a 12-point lead among men (LDs on 14%) and a 28-point lead among women (LDs on 5%).
Opinium had the gender voting figures almost identical but interesting to note 14% of men were DKs but 23% of women were DKs. Similar numbers from More In Common last week.
On a forced vote, 25% of the male DKs would vote Conservative but only 16% of females.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
Thanks for that, personally if tehy are allowed anything less than a good kicking here it will be a case of who is next. For me west should be shovelling stuff to Ukraine so they can send them back to their own country. Murdering women and children willy nilly can never be justified. They are wrong uns.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Yes, this is the Phoney war in more ways than one.
It will liven up in conference season, and very much more in the Spring. Election fever tends to bring new posters, as it did me in 2010, though a fair few disappear at the close of polling on GE night.
PB on election night is the place to be, as its analysis is often way ahead of the other media. I have done some successful reverse ferrets on the night a few times based on analyses here.
Lol! Nobody ever disappeared faster than Stuart Truth on the night Romney lost.
PB saved my skin when Trump beat Clinton. This ferret reversed just about quickly enough to switch bets and win a few quid instead of losing my shirt. RCS was my main benefactor that night, but there were others too whose noses were twitching before the great unwashed were beginning to realise that Trump really was going to be President.
Foxy, is it ok if I send you a personal message? It's about Leicester Royal Infirmary. It's ok, it's not scandalous.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
During the tail end of the Brown government, my impression was that there were a lot of Tory astroturfers on pb. And there's a word you don't hear much nowadays.
My recollections of PB in 2007/8 were that it was largely centre right which was probably a reflection on wanting Labour out - I imagine if we look back in ten years or so we will think PB was centre left because people wanting the Tories out. I think the site is pretty generally centrist - socially liberal and fiscally conservative where the narcissism of small differences is massively magnified by our geeky attention to details or hobby horses.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Is there a contractual obligation to pay them, or can a future government simply legislate them away (like the state pension)?
If so, that's quite a source of uncertainty, particularly given the *interesting* fiscal outlook.
Presumably a sufficiently Sovereign Government can do whatever it likes. But good luck borrowing money from anyone in the future.
(Strikes me as another manifestation of the determination to delay pain to future generations that is part of the British Condition. For decades, we've had doctors, teachers, civil servants etc for lower realtime pay than they might overwise command because of a promise to see them all right when they retire. Brilliant until those promises come due.)
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Which is the same pay-as-you-go system as every (I think) other country in Europe, except that the UK has:
1 - relatively low liabilities due to our public / private pension system, and anomalously low state pensions. 2 - a stronger demographic structure than most. 3 - a system we adjusting early, starting the process of increasing our pension ages during the *Major* administration with the Pensions Act 1995.
Is any other Western European country in as resilient a position?
I'm not really sure why you are declaring Armageddon.
Yes, the rises in pension age started in the UK far earlier.
Also the mass immigration policy was supposed to help with the demographic time bomb.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
There were one or two posters who, when Ukraine made their big breakthroughs, earlier, lost their bonhomie and were noticeably terse and cranky.
Some of this (imo) is that when people make a strong call they want to be proved right. It doesn't actually mean they desire the outcome on every level, just on that level. It's human nature.
Eg I made a big early prediction that the Cons would win easy at GE19. Also bet that way. When this happened I was (most of me) pissed off. I'm Labour in blood and God did I despise Boris Johnson. But at the same time I felt smug city and energised by my punditry triumph and super keen to talk about it.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Yes, this is the Phoney war in more ways than one.
It will liven up in conference season, and very much more in the Spring. Election fever tends to bring new posters, as it did me in 2010, though a fair few disappear at the close of polling on GE night.
PB on election night is the place to be, as its analysis is often way ahead of the other media. I have done some successful reverse ferrets on the night a few times based on analyses here.
Lol! Nobody ever disappeared faster than Stuart Truth on the night Romney lost.
PB saved my skin when Trump beat Clinton. This ferret reversed just about quickly enough to switch bets and win a few quid instead of losing my shirt. RCS was my main benefactor that night, but there were others too whose noses were twitching before the great unwashed were beginning to realise that Trump really was going to be President.
Foxy, is it ok if I send you a personal message? It's about Leicester Royal Infirmary. It's ok, it's not scandalous.
I did a seven hour shift today. I like working Sundays; it's an easy day's work: like being an Amazon driver - no heavy bags of mail to carry while walking miles
What has started to annoy me a little bit about it is how many people say, "I didn't know Royal Mail worked Sundays!"
It's not annoying for anything of itself, just that I hear it so often and I'm bored of saying "oh yes we do"
Today (when it was said to me fifteen to twenty times) I decided on a different response: I told them all, in my poshest voice, that RM doesn't; I'm just an eccentric millionaire who does this for fun at the weekend
Every single person I said it to laughed heartily. I'm going to stick with it
I'm sure there's work done but there's no actual delivery on Sunday, is there?
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
It's not my fault that the government has spent all my 30 years of pensions contributions, currently over £1000 a month, rather than kept it in a pension fund.
Until a year or two ago the NHS Superannuation was a net receipt for the taxpayer.
Did I say I blamed you for the government not funding it? My observation was merely 3/4's are unfunded
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
I know someone who turned down a top Treasury job in favour of three times as much money in the private sector. You'd need an awfully generous pension scheme to make up that difference.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Is there a contractual obligation to pay them, or can a future government simply legislate them away (like the state pension)?
If so, that's quite a source of uncertainty, particularly given the *interesting* fiscal outlook.
There is a contractual obligation and that has to be honoured, however like triple lock its not affordable in the long term especially given the expansion of the public sector
Makes total sense - I'm sure the second part mollifies the GOP base.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy says Jack Smith has a “slam dunk” case against Donald Trump, calls on Trump to drop out of the race, but then says he’d vote for Trump if he’s the Republican nominee.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Yes. Decadence. Like when the Romans started to obsess about each other it was all over. We better shape up.
What I'd like to point to is Donald Trump is starting to slide now. It'll be a 4 handle soon, his WH price, and imo is only going one way. Think Big Picture, he cannot be president again, he won't be, so lay asap before this dawns more widely and becomes the consensus.
And no, do not DYOR. That's wasting valuable time.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
I know someone who turned down a top Treasury job in favour of three times as much money in the private sector. You'd need an awfully generous pension scheme to make up that difference.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
Precisely most public sector jobs arent paid massive differentials to their private sector comrades a couple of thousand usually
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
I know someone who turned down a top Treasury job in favour of three times as much money in the private sector. You'd need an awfully generous pension scheme to make up that difference.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
Which brings us back to @Alastair-meeks.medium.com and the disappearing of the middle class.
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
There have been very few Johnson enthusiasts here. But some ultra-anti-Johnsonites percieve anything less than constant furious criticism of Johnson as being pro-Boris.
I think I'm not as anti-Johnson here but I do maintain that this site was pro-Tory/pro-Johnson much more than it was pro-Labour until well until partygate. Now it has swung back to the centre.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
On average private sector pay is back to where it was in real terms in 2008. Obviously averages cover a lot of variation
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
I think public sector pay has hardly risen at all. I've been in since 2016 and from memory it's been 1% a year. That's a very big cut in real terms. I admit the pension is generous.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
There were one or two posters who, when Ukraine made their big breakthroughs, earlier, lost their bonhomie and were noticeably terse and cranky.
Some of this (imo) is that when people make a strong call they want to be proved right. It doesn't actually mean they desire the outcome on every level, just on that level. It's human nature.
Eg I made a big early prediction that the Cons would win easy at GE19. Also bet that way. When this happened I was (most of me) pissed off. I'm Labour in blood and God did I despise Boris Johnson. But at the same time I felt smug city and energised by my punditry triumph and super keen to talk about it.
This was rather noticeable and quite funny.
One thing that has helped with my betting was being a non-ideological Remainer. A lot of the debate in the past few years has been people trying to convince themselves that they are going to win. Because they are Right.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
Wasn't @Miklosvar banned because yet again for having a slightly different view of Ukraine he was called a Russian plant?
This site does operate as a bit of a hive-mind at times.
No. There are a number of posters on here who follow a pro-Russian, or at least a more neutral, position and they are not banned. Dura-Ace is one example that springs to mind.
But crossing a line by ignoring repeated warnings not to make personal attacks on posters is pretty much gauranteed to get you banned. For clarity, I suspect it is not necesarily the personal attacks but ignoring the warnings that result in the departure.
Dura is not following a pro russian or neutral or pro anything position. He's following a realistic, pragmatic position.
But of course Dura is no shrinking violet so I'm sure he can speak for himself.
My position is to look at the situation and try to analyse it dispassionately.
In Charles' case it was because somebody mentioned knowing one of his cousins in real life and then Charles left.
Personally I think Charles was insufferable and a bit of a tosser but I would support him coming back as I have recently changed my mind and banning people seems to achieve very little. I should know.
I presume 2/3 of children having a parent born outside the UK is in reference to London. It is 1/3 for the UK as a whole I think.
My daughter had a brilliant definition of middle class. Middle class people were those that could keep the same alcohol in the house for more than a week. It really works and differentiates between those who genuinely live hand to mouth and those who just have that little band of comfort, even if it is psychological.
Working class - you live by your body Middle class - you live by your brain Upper class - you live by your rent
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
I think public sector pay has hardly risen at all. I've been in since 2016 and from memory it's been 1% a year. That's a very big cut in real terms. I admit the pension is generous.
But as I said I am talking about actual cuts in pay rather than just not going up as much as inflation. This is a reality for many in the private sector and I am not sure I have ever heard of it happening in the public sector.
The discussion here this afternoon is very meta. We just need someone to write a header on PB banning policy now.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Yes, this is the Phoney war in more ways than one.
It will liven up in conference season, and very much more in the Spring. Election fever tends to bring new posters, as it did me in 2010, though a fair few disappear at the close of polling on GE night.
PB on election night is the place to be, as its analysis is often way ahead of the other media. I have done some successful reverse ferrets on the night a few times based on analyses here.
Lol! Nobody ever disappeared faster than Stuart Truth on the night Romney lost.
PB saved my skin when Trump beat Clinton. This ferret reversed just about quickly enough to switch bets and win a few quid instead of losing my shirt. RCS was my main benefactor that night, but there were others too whose noses were twitching before the great unwashed were beginning to realise that Trump really was going to be President.
Foxy, is it ok if I send you a personal message? It's about Leicester Royal Infirmary. It's ok, it's not scandalous.
Likewise, a salutary lesson that even if something looks 80% sure (as Clinton did) that's not the same as 100%.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
I think public sector pay has hardly risen at all. I've been in since 2016 and from memory it's been 1% a year. That's a very big cut in real terms. I admit the pension is generous.
But as I said I am talking about actual cuts in pay rather than just not going up as much as inflation. This is a reality for many in the private sector and I am not sure I have ever heard of it happening in the public sector.
I would describe a cut in real wages as "actual", though I appreciate people's basket of goods will be different.
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
It's not my fault that the government has spent all my 30 years of pensions contributions, currently over £1000 a month, rather than kept it in a pension fund.
Until a year or two ago the NHS Superannuation was a net receipt for the taxpayer.
You had a chance to vote for the governments in many of those elections, and if you are at or close to pension age, in all of them.
The ones who bear no responsibility for what's been done is young people who are burdened with debts from the past, and shoulder higher rates of tax than those who aren't working do for the same income.
Currently a graduate on £30k pays a basic rate tax of 41% while a pension on the same amount pays a basic rate tax of 20%. That is completely unjustifiable.
If young people ever collectively vote to put the burden of mistakes made in the past more on those who voted in the past, and equalised tax rates or reversed them so payroll taxes were lower rather than higher, then that would not be a default on any contracts.
I presume 2/3 of children having a parent born outside the UK is in reference to London. It is 1/3 for the UK as a whole I think.
My daughter had a brilliant definition of middle class. Middle class people were those that could keep the same alcohol in the house for more than a week. It really works and differentiates between those who genuinely live hand to mouth and those who just have that little band of comfort, even if it is psychological.
Working class - you live by your body Middle class - you live by your brain Upper class - you live by your rent
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
Oh perlease.
There was a pirate who posted on here (before your time) who claimed Boris Johnson was looking like the greatest PM since Thatcher. I can't recall his name but he shared it with a Shankly/ Bob Paisley era Anfield legend. Tommy Smith?
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
Is there a contractual obligation to pay them, or can a future government simply legislate them away (like the state pension)?
If so, that's quite a source of uncertainty, particularly given the *interesting* fiscal outlook.
There is a contractual obligation and that has to be honoured, however like triple lock its not affordable in the long term especially given the expansion of the public sector
The triple lock is a red herring. Barty tells us pensions cost the government £300 billion a year but the state pension is only £10,000 so unless there are 30 million pensioners, the bulk of that figure goes elsewhere; tax relief on private pensions, maybe, I do not know. The basic state pension is way below minimum wage and no amount of triple locking will make a dent in that (well, it will eventually but in the long term, we are all dead).
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
On average private sector pay is back to where it was in real terms in 2008. Obviously averages cover a lot of variation
I presume 2/3 of children having a parent born outside the UK is in reference to London. It is 1/3 for the UK as a whole I think.
My daughter had a brilliant definition of middle class. Middle class people were those that could keep the same alcohol in the house for more than a week. It really works and differentiates between those who genuinely live hand to mouth and those who just have that little band of comfort, even if it is psychological.
Working class - you live by your body Middle class - you live by your brain Upper class - you live by your rent
Following Trump's defeat back in 2020 I wrote a thread header on here about the demise of the US Middle Class. In it I used the work of Stephen Rose from the Brookings Institute in Washington who used a formula based on multiples of the Federal Poverty Level to define working, middle and upper class and compared this to the perceptions of Americans about where they sat in the system. It would be interesting to see a similar approach to the class system in the UK.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
I know someone who turned down a top Treasury job in favour of three times as much money in the private sector. You'd need an awfully generous pension scheme to make up that difference.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
Which brings us back to @Alastair-meeks.medium.com and the disappearing of the middle class.
The fundamental issue is a lack of growth. It's just not there in the same way it was 15+ years ago, and there's no easy way it can be.
If we can't fix it then it points to a future politics of scapegoating and grabbing off those who do, I'm afraid.
On the topic of pensions still, the uk currently has 1.2 trillion in pension liabilities for public sector pensions. Three quarters of which is unfunded and will be payed for out of tax. Anyone saying as a taxpayer I should just stfu about it can do so themselves
It's not my fault that the government has spent all my 30 years of pensions contributions, currently over £1000 a month, rather than kept it in a pension fund.
Until a year or two ago the NHS Superannuation was a net receipt for the taxpayer.
You had a chance to vote for the governments in many of those elections, and if you are at or close to pension age, in all of them.
The ones who bear no responsibility for what's been done is young people who are burdened with debts from the past, and shoulder higher rates of tax than those who aren't working do for the same income.
Currently a graduate on £30k pays a basic rate tax of 41% while a pension on the same amount pays a basic rate tax of 20%. That is completely unjustifiable.
If young people ever collectively vote to put the burden of mistakes made in the past more on those who voted in the past, and equalised tax rates or reversed them so payroll taxes were lower rather than higher, then that would not be a default on any contracts.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
Indeed. I’m making about 5% less money now than a decade ago, and my wife about 10% less money. There’s few time-served grade increments in the private sector, and a lot of involuntary redundancy in the past decade.
Out of interest why would anyone have any inkling of support for Russia.
There have been a number of cases, I feel, of people who appear not full-throated behind Ukraine and are accused of therefore supporting Russia.
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
There were one or two posters who, when Ukraine made their big breakthroughs, earlier, lost their bonhomie and were noticeably terse and cranky.
Some of this (imo) is that when people make a strong call they want to be proved right. It doesn't actually mean they desire the outcome on every level, just on that level. It's human nature.
Eg I made a big early prediction that the Cons would win easy at GE19. Also bet that way. When this happened I was (most of me) pissed off. I'm Labour in blood and God did I despise Boris Johnson. But at the same time I felt smug city and energised by my punditry triumph and super keen to talk about it.
This was rather noticeable and quite funny.
One thing that has helped with my betting was being a non-ideological Remainer. A lot of the debate in the past few years has been people trying to convince themselves that they are going to win. Because they are Right.
I'm sensing a 'non ideological remainer' is a deeply admirable thing to be?
I presume 2/3 of children having a parent born outside the UK is in reference to London. It is 1/3 for the UK as a whole I think.
My daughter had a brilliant definition of middle class. Middle class people were those that could keep the same alcohol in the house for more than a week. It really works and differentiates between those who genuinely live hand to mouth and those who just have that little band of comfort, even if it is psychological.
Working class - you live by your body Middle class - you live by your brain Upper class - you live by your rent
It swings back and forth to be sure. I actually don't remember when I joined (I think it was in the Brown era but may be wrong) but back in those days the site was probably centre leftish overall with a few notable exceptions.
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
Between GE19 and quite late into party-gate this site was very pro Johnson/Johnson Tory Party except for a few exceptions. It swings quickly.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
Again I don't think that is correct at all. There were those of us who would not support Johnson not matter what and we were never shy in making that clear. Indeed looking at it from the anti-Johnson side it always seemed to me that we were in the majority.
I think this site was pretty pro-Johnson/very anti-Corbyn until partygate. It's still anti-Corbyn just also anti-Johnson too.
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
Pre Party gate, I think this site was overwhelmingly anti-Johnson, anti-Corbyn, just much more anti-Corbyn.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
Oh perlease.
There was a pirate who posted on here (before your time) who claimed Boris Johnson was looking like the greatest PM since Thatcher. I can't recall his name but he shared it with a Shankly/ Bob Paisley era Anfield legend. Tommy Smith?
Yes. Most influential since Thatcher I believe was the claim, and that claim stands.
Influential can be for good or ill, the same pirate also lists Atlee as an influential PM despite vehemently disliking what Atlee did to the country.
Whether you like it or not the legacy of Brexit overshadows almost everything any other PM has done post Thatcher.
Who, since Thatcher, has introduced a bigger change to the countries course than Brexit?
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
Stop winging
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
Because the public sector jobs never point out the true salary they are getting. If you saw and advert for jobs one saying 34k + 1700 salary contribution vs one saying 30k + 6k salary contribution then more people would opt for the 30k job. Simple fact is most public sector people I know dont realise how much their job is shoving into their pensions.
They also don’t realise how much their pay has grown relative to the private sector, over the past couple of decades, and how their pensions are all but unattainable outside the public sector, except for top city bankers and lawyers.
How many public sector workers have had real wage cuts in the last decade? I don't mean 'real terms' compared to inflation but actual cuts in their wages. Plenty of people in the private sector have had this.
I think public sector pay has hardly risen at all. I've been in since 2016 and from memory it's been 1% a year. That's a very big cut in real terms. I admit the pension is generous.
But as I said I am talking about actual cuts in pay rather than just not going up as much as inflation. This is a reality for many in the private sector and I am not sure I have ever heard of it happening in the public sector.
I would describe a cut in real wages as "actual", though I appreciate people's basket of goods will be different.
But who in the public sector has had to put up with their salary being cut by 10% or more. Not just compared to inflation but an actual reduction in the number of pounds in their gross pay packet? This is something that happens in the private sector but I have not heard of it in the public sector.
Great analysis. I would extend the disadvantaged age threshold to under 50.
Anyone 50 or over reached the age of 30 before 2003 and was therefore able to get on the housing ladder before the great inflation of the 2000s.
I am 44 and only *just* managed to get on to a property that suited me in 2011. It was already probably 2x more expensive than it had been a decade before. It is now 2x more again.
For me its the defined benefit/defined contribution pension gap. Seems to map quite cleanly between those who benefited from high stability (un-globalised) jobs and the generation after.
There will be a growing divide because of this between private and public sector workers. Personally getting fed up with friends that work public sector telling me that their pensions aren't gold plated as they will give them only 10k to 15k a year. I have contributed more than them and my dc pension will pay me the square root of fuck all due to 20 years of low interest rates....so much for the miracle of cumulative interest
Go and work in the Public Sector then.
Plenty of vacancies due to the shit wages
There's clearly tradeoffs between the two sectors, which are not homogenous even within themselves, so I never quite get like it is portrayed that one is so much superior to the other in some very obvious way - if that were so, why do we have anyone in the shit one, whichever that is?
Yes yes, we couldn't have all one and not the other, but the point being when people complain about their one not being as good as the other, surely they can do something about that as an individual at least?
Most PBers, being right of centre, prefer the greater prospects of the private sector. It’s a pity that some don’t accept that others are willing to trade that for lower pay but better security and pensions; although I’m not so sure about the better security nowadays.
I work in the public sector because I see pensions as part of my renumeration. It baffles me that others don't do the same.
The trouble there though is you dont see it as part of your remuneration when arguing for payrises and your pay not being equivalent to private sector people
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector worker doing the same sort of job earning 33k as a nominal salary will actually be earning 34650 when you add in pension contributions.
Public sector workers will point to this and say see we could earn so much more in the private sector. Ignoring the fact that the private sector worker is actually earning less and will probably retire on about a third of your pension.
There are a damn sight more private sector workers and sooner or later we are going to say fuck off
The fault in your logic is the "same sort of job" bit. I recently had a work colleague (data analyst in the public sector) quit for a simliar job in the private sector for a 50% pay rise .
I know someone who turned down a top Treasury job in favour of three times as much money in the private sector. You'd need an awfully generous pension scheme to make up that difference.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
Which brings us back to @Alastair-meeks.medium.com and the disappearing of the middle class.
The fundamental issue is a lack of growth. It's just not there in the same way it was 15+ years ago, and there's no easy way it can be.
If we can't fix it then it points to a future politics of scapegoating and grabbing off those who do, I'm afraid.
What we need is growth in real GDP per capita rather than GDP.
For Chancellor's to start quoting that figure in the Budget and the Media to lead on that figure, instead of gross GDP would be a good start.
The Russian scientist responsible for the moon shot that crashed has been rushed to hospital after "a sudden deterioration in his health", according to Mail online. Anyone surprised?
Comments
I think what Russia did was illegal and wrong - but I am not as against them as I feel others are, primarily because I think to be that against them would be a complete disaster for the planet and the west.
The pension was always sold in the civil service as a part of your package. It recognised that by working in the public sector you might earn less than you might in the private sector but you were guaranteed a decent retirement. They need to offer better terms to attract policy and technical specialists, and given working in the civil service can be every bit as high pressure as the private sector and much less well paid, this is fair.
Bronze for Hughes.
That's all.
Though I think it's probably easier in my area to get a job in the private sector, so maybe we do recognise it really.
A public sector gets a nominal wage of 30k....you as on pension contributions and its 36k
A provate sector work As a total in pounds I am paying in more than a lot of people that are going to get twice my pension, yes as a percent I may be paying less. Still remains my taxes are paying for the pensions of people that are paying in less pounds but getting twice my pension. Frankly I don't think the majority of private sector workers are going to be able to afford to retire. I am ten years off and I am looking at what I will get and thinking I cannot live on it
The trouble is that, as many have said before, these left/right labels are pretty much defunct these days. So many people are socially liberal but economically right of centre whilst others are the reverse. The number of traditional conservatives - socially reactionary/conservative and economically dry - can probably be counted on one hand.
I don't get a sense it will be very pro-Starmer/Starmer Labour if they win.
As it's older, it's slightly more Tory than average.
The one distortion is probably many more Liberals than average. Both as in liberal Conservative/liberal Labour, as well as Liberal Democrats.
In 2019 the country overwhelmingly wanted Tories to win/Labour to lose, so the site reasonably reflected that. If anything the site represented the "despite Boris" Tories possibly more than the country as a whole.
By next time I think the site will reflect a desire to replace the Tories (it does currently) if no particular love for the Opposition other than by default, which is the current position of the country.
As for the highlighted bit, I can only apologise if that was how it came across as it was not my intention. I can only apologise for any hurt caused.
There is one particular user who likes to try and pretend they understand my mental state and to tell me what I have. I find this incredibly irritating and that is when I tend to fly off the handle. I am trying my best to just ignore them going forward.
Given the closing comments, on the polling margin for the vague and value-laden term "independence" being narrow, it should be noted that the margin for Scotland remaining in or leaving the UK is not.
i.e. the wording "Should Scotland remain in the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?" produced a margin of 17% in favour of remaining in the UK (37% to 54%), when last asked at the start of the year.
I am sure that the Nats would claim that this result is influenced by the association of "remain" with Brexit but the fact is that the wording is as clear as day. But to get over any objection to the use of "remain", the following could be used and I am pretty sure would produce a near identical result: "Should Scotland stay as part of the United Kingdom or leave the United Kingdom?"
Cameron made a huge mistake by allowing the SNP to dictate the terms and wording of the 2014 referendum, as have subsequent PMs in continuing to allow the debate on secession to be framed in terms of "independence".
Get a job in the Public Sector if you think things are so good there or STFU
Why are there so many Public Sector Vacancies do you think?
We can agree to disagree on this one but I suppose a lot of these things are also down to perception.
Right now it feels pretty centrist to me, the people are not quite as good as when I first joined but the range of perspectives is pretty good.
I feel it's probably slightly to the right of me all told but then I am probably slightly to the left of the country. I still hope one day the Tories might be interested in my vote.
The truth is, people come and people go. Nothing wrong with that.
I find there are those who are prepared to engage in debate and those who are simply here to provoke a response.
The provocateurs like to stir things up by putting up a view which they know will enrage a few and get the debate flowing. Oddly enough, while they'll respond to the angry posts (often by doubling down on the original view) posts which often a reasoned rebuttal are ignored because, in truth, provocateurs are very poor at debate.
There is a wealth, breadth and depth of knowledge and experience on here - the problem with that is subjects become debates between experts from which most are excluded by virtue of their lack of knowledge. Even then, experiences on particular topics seem far from uniform or consistent.
It's been a remarkable decade or so - the EU Referendum, the Scottish Independence referendum, three general elections, COVID - the rise and fall (and rise ?) of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. It's been unusual for there to be nothing to debate or discuss - perhaps we may be entering a quieter time (though I doubt it).
I'd also put up the long period of centre-right ascendency in Britain is coming to an end - for most of PB's life, the Conservatives have been dominant and often popular while Labour has been weak and often unpopular. That may be changing and it may be the views of the centre-right will cease to resonate as they have done and new viewpoints, not well represented to date on PB, will come through - it will be interesting to see what will happen if Labour do win a substantial victory next year.
There are millions more working for the public sector than there were in the past.
A lot of public sector jobs are jobs that are very valuable and needed, but not all are. If the state were to do less, it could do it with fewer people.
I feel I was in a distinct small minority in being pro Johnson until just before Partygate. I actually decided to stop supporting the Tories when NI went up which was just before Partygate.
UK politics is actually pretty boring at the moment. There’s very little happening compared with most times in the last 7 or 8 years. And it’s just a bit too early to get worked up about the US election. So the site starts to eat itself, save the occasional flare up on Ukraine or by-elections.
Which didn't exactly go to plan.
How on Earth has King Charles not been held to account for what has happened? I cannot believe he wasn't aware of what was going on. He used to ask Saville for PR advice!
It was only in 2017 that females proportionally began to vote Labour more than men. The recent YouGov suggests this is widening fast and becoming a nascent political cleavage to rival age.
Which may partially explain PB scepticism about a Labour victory. Despite months of c.20% leads.
The dominant PB demographic (male, predominantly 50+, well above average income) simply hasn't shown anything like those swings. So is dubious they exist at all.
It will liven up in conference season, and very much more in the Spring. Election fever tends to bring new posters, as it did me in 2010, though a fair few disappear at the close of polling on GE night.
PB on election night is the place to be, as its analysis is often way ahead of the other media. I have done some successful reverse ferrets on the night a few times based on analyses here.
Until a year or two ago the NHS Superannuation was a net receipt for the taxpayer.
1 - relatively low liabilities due to our public / private pension system, and anomalously low state pensions.
2 - a stronger demographic structure than most.
3 - a system we adjusting early, starting the process of increasing our pension ages during the *Major* administration with the Pensions Act 1995.
Is any other Western European country in as resilient a position?
I'm not really sure why you are declaring Armageddon.
If so, that's quite a source of uncertainty, particularly given the *interesting* fiscal outlook.
Opinium had the gender voting figures almost identical but interesting to note 14% of men were DKs but 23% of women were DKs. Similar numbers from More In Common last week.
On a forced vote, 25% of the male DKs would vote Conservative but only 16% of females.
PB saved my skin when Trump beat Clinton. This ferret reversed just about quickly enough to switch bets and win a few quid instead of losing my shirt. RCS was my main benefactor that night, but there were others too whose noses were twitching before the great unwashed were beginning to realise that Trump really was going to be President.
Foxy, is it ok if I send you a personal message? It's about Leicester Royal Infirmary. It's ok, it's not scandalous.
(Strikes me as another manifestation of the determination to delay pain to future generations that is part of the British Condition. For decades, we've had doctors, teachers, civil servants etc for lower realtime pay than they might overwise command because of a promise to see them all right when they retire. Brilliant until those promises come due.)
Also the mass immigration policy was supposed to help with the demographic time bomb.
Eg I made a big early prediction that the Cons would win easy at GE19. Also bet that way. When this happened I was (most of me) pissed off. I'm Labour in blood and God did I despise Boris Johnson. But at the same time I felt smug city and energised by my punditry triumph and super keen to talk about it.
Perhaps the real divide is not between public and private sectors but between the C-suite and the shop floor in whichever sector; between 6- and 7-figure salaried chiefs and the rest of us.
Republican Senator Bill Cassidy says Jack Smith has a “slam dunk” case against Donald Trump, calls on Trump to drop out of the race, but then says he’d vote for Trump if he’s the Republican nominee.
This is what putting party over country looks like
https://twitter.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1693316107665334403?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet
What I'd like to point to is Donald Trump is starting to slide now. It'll be a 4 handle soon, his WH price, and imo is only going one way. Think Big Picture, he cannot be president again, he won't be, so lay asap before this dawns more widely and becomes the consensus.
And no, do not DYOR. That's wasting valuable time.
That doesn't mean the site was pro Johnson.
One thing that has helped with my betting was being a non-ideological Remainer. A lot of the debate in the past few years has been people trying to convince themselves that they are going to win. Because they are Right.
But of course Dura is no shrinking violet so I'm sure he can speak for himself.
My position is to look at the situation and try to analyse it dispassionately.
I would imagine they'll be back soon.
Middle class - you live by your brain
Upper class - you live by your rent
“Listless vessels” ? wtf
MAGA world lashes out over DeSantis’ ‘listless vessels’ remark
Trump campaign and supporters push comparisons to Hillary Clinton’s ‘deplorables’ remark.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/19/desantis-trump-listless-vessels-00111971
Sometimes the longshots really do come in.
The ones who bear no responsibility for what's been done is young people who are burdened with debts from the past, and shoulder higher rates of tax than those who aren't working do for the same income.
Currently a graduate on £30k pays a basic rate tax of 41% while a pension on the same amount pays a basic rate tax of 20%. That is completely unjustifiable.
If young people ever collectively vote to put the burden of mistakes made in the past more on those who voted in the past, and equalised tax rates or reversed them so payroll taxes were lower rather than higher, then that would not be a default on any contracts.
There was a pirate who posted on here (before your time) who claimed Boris Johnson was looking like the greatest PM since Thatcher. I can't recall his name but he shared it with a Shankly/ Bob Paisley era Anfield legend. Tommy Smith?
If we can't fix it then it points to a future politics of scapegoating and grabbing off those who do, I'm afraid.
Influential can be for good or ill, the same pirate also lists Atlee as an influential PM despite vehemently disliking what Atlee did to the country.
Whether you like it or not the legacy of Brexit overshadows almost everything any other PM has done post Thatcher.
Who, since Thatcher, has introduced a bigger change to the countries course than Brexit?
For Chancellor's to start quoting that figure in the Budget and the Media to lead on that figure, instead of gross GDP would be a good start.
Anyone surprised?