Fifty Shades of Grey Voters. Sunak’s punishing polling – politicalbetting.com

System

Fifty Shades of Grey Voters. Sunak’s punishing polling – politicalbetting.com

Do you think the triple lock for all pensioners should or should not be maintained at the current time?All BritonsShould: 66%Should not: 11%18-24yr oldsShould: 44%Should not: 15%65+yr oldsShould: 90%Should not: 5%https://t.co/GO9ueKmTCJ pic.twitter.com/nkMeOLLKJq

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Sunak = George Russell

Carnyx

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

EPG

Of course it should, and it should be funded by free owls.

ydoethur

Shurely Fifty Shades of Gray is what the report on lockdown parties was?

tlg86

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

The opposite is also true. Before the 2017 election, a guy in the pub told my dad he was voting Labour for the first time because he did not want his grandchildren to pay tuition fees.

another_richard

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

ydoethur

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

another_richard

Something which will happen within a year of the general election will be putting back the pension age for younger people.

EPG

another_richard said:

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

1. On the super-rich only.
2. On benefits scroungers only.
Between these two tiny groups, the well-meaning 95% can surely enjoy ever-longer periods of their lives when they don't work, in tandem with growing take-home incomes in their pockets while they do work.

DavidL

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

BartholomewRoberts

Poll finds spending on X is popular shocker.

We had a discussion on the previous thread on the dangers of direct democracy. People vote for cutting taxes and boosting spending then fail to understand why the numbers don't add up.

A more interesting question would be balanced.

Do you think tuition fees should be put up to maintain the triple lock?

Do you think teachers/nurses/doctors pay should be cut to maintain the triple lock?

Do you think you (not others) should pay more taxes to maintain the triple lock.

Simply asking about the pro without the con is utterly meaningless unless people have studied the issue and instinctively understand the cons.

SirNorfolkPassmore

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

another_richard

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

Even the suggestion of that would lead to a massive capital outflow abroad (followed by skilled workers moving abroad), mass cashing in on pensions early and immediate stopping of all pensions contributions.

I imagine much of the financial system would collapse.

ydoethur

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

No, that was the idea.

And I'm mildly amused you think it would be illegal. Leaving aside the state of most private pensions which will probably ultimately have to be lifeboated anyway, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means they can actually pass a law to make anything legal.

The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 was, for example, done without even remotely adequate compensation (contrary to the lies of Dalton and Wolmar) but it was definitely legal.

I think you mean it would be against the right to property which is different. But if you still got a pension, even a much lower one, I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument stick.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, incidentally. But I'm sure it will be proposed at some point. And to be fair, it may as I note above happen to many pensions by default anyway.

EPG

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

In tandem with the equivalent wipe-out ... oops, I mean "nationalisation" ... of public sector pension schemes.

BartholomewRoberts

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

Confiscation would obviously be wrong.

Merging NI (both parts) and the Graduate Tax into Income Tax so that private pensions were taxed at the same rate as earned income would be entirely reasonable.

Luckyguy1983

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

ydoethur

EPG said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

In tandem with the equivalent wipe-out ... oops, I mean "nationalisation" ... of public sector pension schemes.

I'm fully in favour of reform of public sector pension schemes.

Starting with stripping pensions from every single twattish civil servant and politician who attended a lockdown party.

BartholomewRoberts

ydoethur said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

No, that was the idea.

And I'm mildly amused you think it would be illegal. Leaving aside the state of most private pensions which will probably ultimately have to be lifeboated anyway, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means they can actually pass a law to make anything legal.

The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 was, for example, done without even remotely adequate compensation (contrary to the lies of Dalton and Wolmar) but it was definitely legal.

I think you mean it would be against the right to property which is different. But if you still got a pension, even a much lower one, I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument stick.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, incidentally. But I'm sure it will be proposed at some point. And to be fair, it may as I note above happen to many pensions by default anyway.

When you say private pensions do you mean gold plated public sector pensions too?

ydoethur

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

Sarah or Jeremy?

EPG

ydoethur said:

EPG said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

In tandem with the equivalent wipe-out ... oops, I mean "nationalisation" ... of public sector pension schemes.

I'm fully in favour of reform of public sector pension schemes.

Starting with stripping pensions from every single twattish civil servant and politician who attended a lockdown party.

I would say it'll never happen. But it could happen.

williamglenn

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

That's equivalent to proposing to nationalise people's savings. It's Chavezesque.

SirNorfolkPassmore

ydoethur said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

No, that was the idea.

And I'm mildly amused you think it would be illegal. Leaving aside the state of most private pensions which will probably ultimately have to be lifeboated anyway, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means they can actually pass a law to make anything legal.

The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 was, for example, done without even remotely adequate compensation (contrary to the lies of Dalton and Wolmar) but it was definitely legal.

I think you mean it would be against the right to property which is different. But if you still got a pension, even a much lower one, I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument stick.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, incidentally. But I'm sure it will be proposed at some point. And to be fair, it may as I note above happen to many pensions by default anyway.

It would certainly be illegal under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been very widely used to secure adequate compensation for compulsory acquisition of assets. I don't pretend to know much about the debate over rail nationalisation, but of course it predates the ECHR anyway.

The point of nationalisation is that you believe that whatever it is would be better run from within the public sector. You don't get "free" assets from it as property rights are a protected human right.

EPG

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

No, that was the idea.

And I'm mildly amused you think it would be illegal. Leaving aside the state of most private pensions which will probably ultimately have to be lifeboated anyway, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means they can actually pass a law to make anything legal.

The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 was, for example, done without even remotely adequate compensation (contrary to the lies of Dalton and Wolmar) but it was definitely legal.

I think you mean it would be against the right to property which is different. But if you still got a pension, even a much lower one, I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument stick.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, incidentally. But I'm sure it will be proposed at some point. And to be fair, it may as I note above happen to many pensions by default anyway.

It would be illegal under Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That has been very widely used to secure adequate compensation for compulsory acquisition of assets. I don't pretend to know much about the debate over rail nationalisation, but of course it predates the ECHR anyway.

The point of nationalisation is that you believe that whatever it is would be better run from within the public sector. You don't get "free" assets from it as property rights are a protected human right.

Oh yeah, I think this is the likely constraint under English law. There is a workable alternative to the seizure of private property, which is higher taxes (including taxes on property).

MattW

another_richard said:

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Since this country has been doing adjustments since the 1990s, and the recent range of forecasts for future cost of the Triple Lock takes 3 decades to even reach 1% of GDP, these are rather absurd questions.

A more pertinent question is perhaps to ask why working age benefits are linked to the inflation, and not to average earnings which would be more sensible.

MattW

Off topic for the post. On topic for a Sunday.

Perun: Russian Defence Production 2023.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrtAwT2sgs

Big_G_NorthWales

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

TheKitchenCabinet

FPT @Nigelb

Re the David Ignatius column in the WP, it is not what he said which is why it is causing a stir - that has been said multiple times - it is who he is. Ignatius is probably the closest in the journalist world to the Democrat top funders and establishment as can be. If he wrote about it in the WP, that is significant.

viewcode

War Santa has emptied his sack. Today's present

Perun 20230917: "Russian Defence Production 2023 - Can Russia keep up with equipment attrition in Ukraine?", YouTube, 70 mins, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctrtAwT2sgs

DavidL

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

The triple lock requires the state pension to go up by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. That means that in many years pensions will rise by more than average earnings. And that is not sustainable. The proportion of pension recipients is increasing year on year. There is no capital fund to pay these pensions. They are paid out of current taxes, the same education, defence infrastucture spending and many other priorities. I think that they should raise the pension by no more than average wages. Anything else penalises the working to benefit the retired.

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

SKS has, in fairness, been at least equivocal about it.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

SKS has, in fairness, been at least equivocal about it.

Sir Keir Starmer has equivocated on a controversial issue?

I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Next we'll be hearing that OFSTED have denied multiple breaches of safeguarding.

Big_G_NorthWales

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

SKS has, in fairness, been at least equivocal about it.

Isn't he like that with everything?

Verulamius

Perhaps the solution is to keep the triple lock but change the underlying attributes?

Daveyboy1961

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

The triple lock requires the state pension to go up by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. That means that in many years pensions will rise by more than average earnings. And that is not sustainable. The proportion of pension recipients is increasing year on year. There is no capital fund to pay these pensions. They are paid out of current taxes, the same education, defence infrastucture spending and many other priorities. I think that they should raise the pension by no more than average wages. Anything else penalises the working to benefit the retired.

In the vast majority of cases, the state pension is a fraction of working salaries, so the same percentage increase ends up much less in absolute terms. Pensioners still have to pay the same house insurance rises and food rises and utility bill rises, yet their absolute increase is much less.

And for the record, I am quite happy to pay NI from my pension. Better still would be a roll up into tax. The only problem is who would pay the employers NI?

Mexicanpete

...

Stuartinromford

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

Though given a choice between a manageable pension for fewer years, or a unmanagably low pension for more years, there's a lot to be said for the first option.

It does mean that we need to think about what winding down, decade before retirement, jobs look like. In education, I suspect the template is all the doddery physicists who come in to teach the A Level class because there's literally nobody else who can do it.

ydoethur

Daveyboy1961 said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

The triple lock requires the state pension to go up by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. That means that in many years pensions will rise by more than average earnings. And that is not sustainable. The proportion of pension recipients is increasing year on year. There is no capital fund to pay these pensions. They are paid out of current taxes, the same education, defence infrastucture spending and many other priorities. I think that they should raise the pension by no more than average wages. Anything else penalises the working to benefit the retired.

In the vast majority of cases, the state pension is a fraction of working salaries, so the same percentage increase ends up much less in absolute terms. Pensioners still have to pay the same house insurance rises and food rises and utility bill rises, yet their absolute increase is much less.

And for the record, I am quite happy to pay NI from my pension. Better still would be a roll up into tax. The only problem is who would pay the employers NI?

Easiest way would be to keep NI but have only employers pay it, while keeping everyone else on a reformed income tax.

Big_G_NorthWales

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

Though given a choice between a manageable pension for fewer years, or a unmanagably low pension for more years, there's a lot to be said for the first option.

It does mean that we need to think about what winding down, decade before retirement, jobs look like. In education, I suspect the template is all the doddery physicists who come in to teach the A Level class because there's literally nobody else who can do it.

I agree but the politics doesn't, and in the absence of ending the triple lock retirement age has to increase, which would also be unpopular

ydoethur

England have axed Jason Roy.

https://www.espncricinfo.com/story/jason-roy-axed-from-world-cup-squad-harry-brook-included-1398911

ydoethur

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

Though given a choice between a manageable pension for fewer years, or a unmanagably low pension for more years, there's a lot to be said for the first option.

It does mean that we need to think about what winding down, decade before retirement, jobs look like. In education, I suspect the template is all the doddery physicists who come in to teach the A Level class because there's literally nobody else who can do it.

We could all make a late career change, to run for President, perhaps. Or be members of the Lords (although Johnson seemed to prefer them young).

DavidL

ydoethur said:

Daveyboy1961 said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

The triple lock requires the state pension to go up by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. That means that in many years pensions will rise by more than average earnings. And that is not sustainable. The proportion of pension recipients is increasing year on year. There is no capital fund to pay these pensions. They are paid out of current taxes, the same education, defence infrastucture spending and many other priorities. I think that they should raise the pension by no more than average wages. Anything else penalises the working to benefit the retired.

In the vast majority of cases, the state pension is a fraction of working salaries, so the same percentage increase ends up much less in absolute terms. Pensioners still have to pay the same house insurance rises and food rises and utility bill rises, yet their absolute increase is much less.

And for the record, I am quite happy to pay NI from my pension. Better still would be a roll up into tax. The only problem is who would pay the employers NI?

Easiest way would be to keep NI but have only employers pay it, while keeping everyone else on a reformed income tax.

It is obviously unacceptable that those who are working should pay a higher rate of tax than those who live off pensions, investment income or rents. Really, incorporating NI into IT is simply a no brainer and it is a disgrace that this was not done decades ago when Investment Income Surcharge was abolished.

Big_G_NorthWales

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

DavidL

Daveyboy1961 said:

DavidL said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I don't pretend to understand the issue fully, but isn't the solution just to let National Insurance wither on the vine and tax some of the pension lucre back via income tax?

The triple lock requires the state pension to go up by the highest of inflation, average earnings or 2.5%. That means that in many years pensions will rise by more than average earnings. And that is not sustainable. The proportion of pension recipients is increasing year on year. There is no capital fund to pay these pensions. They are paid out of current taxes, the same education, defence infrastucture spending and many other priorities. I think that they should raise the pension by no more than average wages. Anything else penalises the working to benefit the retired.

In the vast majority of cases, the state pension is a fraction of working salaries, so the same percentage increase ends up much less in absolute terms. Pensioners still have to pay the same house insurance rises and food rises and utility bill rises, yet their absolute increase is much less.

And for the record, I am quite happy to pay NI from my pension. Better still would be a roll up into tax. The only problem is who would pay the employers NI?

I accept that the percentage would fall over time. What we need is to fix the pension as a proportion of the average wage.

Ghedebrav

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

Daveyboy1961

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

Though given a choice between a manageable pension for fewer years, or a unmanagably low pension for more years, there's a lot to be said for the first option.

It does mean that we need to think about what winding down, decade before retirement, jobs look like. In education, I suspect the template is all the doddery physicists who come in to teach the A Level class because there's literally nobody else who can do it.

I am a physicist retired teacher, not as doddery mind, but happy even now to go back and teach A level Physics or Maths if the jobs are available. I am a school administrator in a 11 to 16 school, so don't have A level as an option.

Daveyboy1961

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

similar to the "free" tv licenses idea....

DavidL

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

EPG

ydoethur said:

Stuartinromford said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

DavidL said:

Carnyx said:

Also, young folk have parents and grandparents. And even great-grandparents.

Edit: but did the question specify the State Pension?

Yep, and cumulatively the statistics now show that there are more over 65s in Scotland than under 15s Which makes the triple lock completely unsustainable. Time to stop being naive about this.

I agree but there isn't a politician brave enough, and at PMQs last week it was the SNP demanding its continuity

If it continues then it is inevitable the retirement age will rocket

Though given a choice between a manageable pension for fewer years, or a unmanagably low pension for more years, there's a lot to be said for the first option.

It does mean that we need to think about what winding down, decade before retirement, jobs look like. In education, I suspect the template is all the doddery physicists who come in to teach the A Level class because there's literally nobody else who can do it.

We could all make a late career change, to run for President, perhaps. Or be members of the Lords (although Johnson seemed to prefer them young).

Traditionally the Lords membership persistently under-represented certain groups, like 23-year old blondes, though to be fair they did include horsey types quite well.

Big_G_NorthWales

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

My daughter and I came to the same conclusion yesterday

Ghedebrav

On retirement age btw - I’d be perfectly happy to go without a state pension till I’m 70 (am currently 42).

Looking at the difference between my mum, aged 70 but 100% sharp mind and still full of ambition and energy because she’s never really retired - vs my stepmum who is actually a few years younger but completely retired at 60 and spends her days watching terrible TV, drinking wine, feeling depressed and not knowing what day it is; I’ve no doubt that I want to stay socially and economically productive for as long as I’m useful.

DecrepiterJohnL

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

Ten Hag's reputation has fallen faster than Liz Truss's. At least she achieved something in office. She stopped Charles singing the national anthem.

SandyRentool

Keep the triple lock, increase retirement age to 70.

Just don't mention the second bit in the manifesto!

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

Ten Hag's reputation has fallen faster than Liz Truss's. At least she achieved something in office. She stopped Charles singing the national anthem.

She also stopped Johnson from being in charge for the Queen's funeral. And, by blowing up so remarkably fast, made his return impossible.

However hopeless she was as PM, we do owe her a debt of gratitude for that.

DecrepiterJohnL

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

The triple lock is misunderstood on the other side as well. First, it is not unaffordable although eventually it will be. Second, there is other pension spending that could be cut, principally higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions. The rich get 40 per cent back; the poor only 20 per cent. (That begs the question of whether there should be tax relief at all.)

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

Ten Hag's reputation has fallen faster than Liz Truss's. At least she achieved something in office. She stopped Charles singing the national anthem.

She also stopped Johnson from being in charge for the Queen's funeral. And, by blowing up so remarkably fast, made his return impossible.

However hopeless she was as PM, we do owe her a debt of gratitude for that.

That is true, and Truss carelessly made her erstwhile rival, Penny Mordaunt, into a national treasure.

DavidL

SandyRentool said:

Keep the triple lock, increase retirement age to 70.

Just don't mention the second bit in the manifesto!

Everything at that age depends on health. If I am fit enough, like @Ghedebrav's mum, I will continue to work until I am at least 70 and possibly longer. I want to reduce the stress of working but work, the social contact it generates and the structure that it gives is a good thing. I am occasionally slightly bitter about some of my neighbours who retired from the public sector with large pensions and huge lump sums in their late 50s or at 60 but I do not, in all honesty, envy them.

Of course, if my health makes working difficult that is an entirely different matter.

ydoethur

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

The triple lock is misunderstood on the other side as well. First, it is not unaffordable although eventually it will be. Second, there is other pension spending that could be cut, principally higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions. The rich get 40 per cent back; the poor only 20 per cent. (That begs the question of whether there should be tax relief at all.)

Yes I think there should be, but it would be more just to have a flat rate, possibly of 25-30%, for everyone. After all, it is a good way of providing for people in retirement, cheaper than doing it via taxation.*

I suspect however the reason there isn't is to encourage more rich people to pump money into pensions to keep them solvent. If they don't get a generous return via tax they would go elsewhere.

*well, when done right, which is a different problem.

ydoethur

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

Keep the triple lock, increase retirement age to 70.

Just don't mention the second bit in the manifesto!

Everything at that age depends on health. If I am fit enough, like @Ghedebrav's mum, I will continue to work until I am at least 70 and possibly longer. I want to reduce the stress of working but work, the social contact it generates and the structure that it gives is a good thing. I am occasionally slightly bitter about some of my neighbours who retired from the public sector with large pensions and huge lump sums in their late 50s or at 60 but I do not, in all honesty, envy them.

Of course, if my health makes working difficult that is an entirely different matter.

which is why it's also silly to decide pensions by age rather than by age and occupation.

carnforth

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

The triple lock is misunderstood on the other side as well. First, it is not unaffordable although eventually it will be. Second, there is other pension spending that could be cut, principally higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions. The rich get 40 per cent back; the poor only 20 per cent. (That begs the question of whether there should be tax relief at all.)

The point is rather that higher rate taxpayers get 40% back, but don't pay it in retirement. Build a million pound pension pot which pays £50k per year in retirement, and get 40%/45% back on all of it, but then pay 0%/20% when it pays out.

Sean_F

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

DavidL

ydoethur said:

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

Keep the triple lock, increase retirement age to 70.

Just don't mention the second bit in the manifesto!

Everything at that age depends on health. If I am fit enough, like @Ghedebrav's mum, I will continue to work until I am at least 70 and possibly longer. I want to reduce the stress of working but work, the social contact it generates and the structure that it gives is a good thing. I am occasionally slightly bitter about some of my neighbours who retired from the public sector with large pensions and huge lump sums in their late 50s or at 60 but I do not, in all honesty, envy them.

Of course, if my health makes working difficult that is an entirely different matter.

which is why it's also silly to decide pensions by age rather than by age and occupation.

Well the likes of @TwistedFireStopper qualifies for his pension much earlier than the rest of us and rightly so.

OldKingCole

Ghedebrav said:

On retirement age btw - I’d be perfectly happy to go without a state pension till I’m 70 (am currently 42).

Looking at the difference between my mum, aged 70 but 100% sharp mind and still full of ambition and energy because she’s never really retired - vs my stepmum who is actually a few years younger but completely retired at 60 and spends her days watching terrible TV, drinking wine, feeling depressed and not knowing what day it is; I’ve no doubt that I want to stay socially and economically productive for as long as I’m useful.

So do I, but it’s less easy from a wheelchair. “All” I can do is write adverts for our local (voluntary) museum and similar activities. And host, and participate in, sedentary U3a activities.

Cyclefree

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

DavidL

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

Getting elected on such a platform may be a tad problematic, however.

DecrepiterJohnL

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

The triple lock is misunderstood on the other side as well. First, it is not unaffordable although eventually it will be. Second, there is other pension spending that could be cut, principally higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions. The rich get 40 per cent back; the poor only 20 per cent. (That begs the question of whether there should be tax relief at all.)

Yes I think there should be, but it would be more just to have a flat rate, possibly of 25-30%, for everyone. After all, it is a good way of providing for people in retirement, cheaper than doing it via taxation.*

I suspect however the reason there isn't is to encourage more rich people to pump money into pensions to keep them solvent. If they don't get a generous return via tax they would go elsewhere.

*well, when done right, which is a different problem.

Yes, I was vaguely wondering whether we could change to an ISA-like system.

Pensions: untaxed going in; taxed coming out. ISAs are the opposite. Changing pensions to remove tax relief on contributions but, in return, not taxing pension payments would keep the incentive to contribute while allowing governments to take more money now and worry about a drop in the tax take in a generation's time when their successors or opponents are in office.

ydoethur

I think I've actually come up with the solution.

Give everyone a state pension of £66,000 a year.

But, it's only payable after the death of the recipient, for one year only.

SirNorfolkPassmore

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

Ten Hag's reputation has fallen faster than Liz Truss's. At least she achieved something in office. She stopped Charles singing the national anthem.

She also stopped Johnson from being in charge for the Queen's funeral. And, by blowing up so remarkably fast, made his return impossible.

However hopeless she was as PM, we do owe her a debt of gratitude for that.

That is true, and Truss carelessly made her erstwhile rival, Penny Mordaunt, into a national treasure.

The title of "national treasure" is handed out far too easily these days. I hardly think getting favourable reviews for looking good whilst carrying a sword puts her on a par with David Attenborough.

I haven't read the papers today, but have little doubt that it's a matter of time before Russell Brand is described as a "disgraced former national treasure" simply because he was a somewhat ubiquitous entertainer at one point.

DecrepiterJohnL

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

You are David Cameron AICMFP. These things are ten-a-penny now for use as home offices so if you drop the mezzanine, you can probably find one off the shelf.

DecrepiterJohnL

Farooq said:

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

A surprising number of problems can be solved through industrial-scale murder.

That's what Vladimir Putin thought but turns out things are more complicated.

Ghedebrav

DavidL said:

SandyRentool said:

Keep the triple lock, increase retirement age to 70.

Just don't mention the second bit in the manifesto!

Everything at that age depends on health. If I am fit enough, like @Ghedebrav's mum, I will continue to work until I am at least 70 and possibly longer. I want to reduce the stress of working but work, the social contact it generates and the structure that it gives is a good thing. I am occasionally slightly bitter about some of my neighbours who retired from the public sector with large pensions and huge lump sums in their late 50s or at 60 but I do not, in all honesty, envy them.

Of course, if my health makes working difficult that is an entirely different matter.

I think that’s right, and to an extent we have to slightly rethink career paths to make the most of people who have become a bit less physically able/fit but have masses of tremendously valuable experience, knowledge and skill.

Health is an issue, but when you’ve a reason to stay fit and healthy you’re more likely to stay fit and healthy. I realise that’s a massive generalisation of course and discounts all manner of reasons why work could be difficult. But as a general principle I think it makes sense.

I’d sooner money get spent on productive stuff like good infrastructure or schools that aren’t falling down than an age-locked UBI.

Carnyx

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DavidL said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Manchester United in crisis but Chelsea with all their spending look equally as bad with just 5 points from 5 games

I think that ten Hag is in serious danger of losing his job in the next couple of weeks. He has bought, at considerable expense, a collection of players who are no better than the ones currently at the club and seems to have no clear idea what system he wants them to play.

Ten Hag's reputation has fallen faster than Liz Truss's. At least she achieved something in office. She stopped Charles singing the national anthem.

She also stopped Johnson from being in charge for the Queen's funeral. And, by blowing up so remarkably fast, made his return impossible.

However hopeless she was as PM, we do owe her a debt of gratitude for that.

That is true, and Truss carelessly made her erstwhile rival, Penny Mordaunt, into a national treasure.

The title of "national treasure" is handed out far too easily these days. I hardly think getting favourable reviews for looking good whilst carrying a sword puts her on a par with David Attenborough.

I haven't read the papers today, but have little doubt that it's a matter of time before Russell Brand is described as a "disgraced former national treasure" simply because he was a somewhat ubiquitous entertainer at one point.

I must say Ms Mordaunt has been showing a much more splenetic side of late. But then publicly intervening (Brown-on-indyref style) on departments or fields not one's own seem to be par for those cabinet ministers on manoeuvres, cf. Ms Braverman and pussycats and doggies.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-66802351

Scott_xP

Cyclefree said:

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

He's a lumberjack, and he's OK...

Ghedebrav

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

I’m asking for carpentry lessons for my birthday fwiw! Despite being terrible at woodwork at school, as I’ve got older I’ve got a little more practical and would now quite like to make a few items of my own furniture.

Cyclefree

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

You are David Cameron AICMFP. These things are ten-a-penny now for use as home offices so if you drop the mezzanine, you can probably find one off the shelf.

I've looked. They are ghastly and expensive for what they are. The shepherds huts are unbelievably pretentious.

None of the ones I've seen are really what I'm looking for.

Carnyx

DecrepiterJohnL said:

ydoethur said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Ghedebrav said:

Honestly I think the triple lock is broadly misunderstood and a lot of people will have answered this as if the question was ‘should we be kind to old people?’.

It’s as tricky for Labour as it is for the Tories though. An economically unsustainable idea (part of the Pandora’s Box unleashed on the national by Cameron) that is very hard to go back on.

The triple lock is misunderstood on the other side as well. First, it is not unaffordable although eventually it will be. Second, there is other pension spending that could be cut, principally higher rate tax relief on private pension contributions. The rich get 40 per cent back; the poor only 20 per cent. (That begs the question of whether there should be tax relief at all.)

Yes I think there should be, but it would be more just to have a flat rate, possibly of 25-30%, for everyone. After all, it is a good way of providing for people in retirement, cheaper than doing it via taxation.*

I suspect however the reason there isn't is to encourage more rich people to pump money into pensions to keep them solvent. If they don't get a generous return via tax they would go elsewhere.

*well, when done right, which is a different problem.

Yes, I was vaguely wondering whether we could change to an ISA-like system.

Pensions: untaxed going in; taxed coming out. ISAs are the opposite. Changing pensions to remove tax relief on contributions but, in return, not taxing pension payments would keep the incentive to contribute while allowing governments to take more money now and worry about a drop in the tax take in a generation's time when their successors or opponents are in office.

Analogy is a bit complex because we're talking about income taxes (including NI), but also capital gains taxes. Which are very erratic by comparison (e.g. if one is lucky enough to have lived in a Surbiton semi for 50 years). Not sure if that makes much difference ...

Leon

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

williamglenn

Leon said:

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/47385/world-thinkers-2015-the-results

"Dismissed by his opponents as a clownish opportunist, Brand is nevertheless the most charismatic figure on Britain’s populist left"

Mexicanpete

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

Voluntary or mandatory?

turbotubbs

Farooq said:

Romania. Played two matches, conceded 158 points.

You might as well field a team of traffic cones.

The rugby world cup is fucking rubbish.

Feel free to ignore, and not post about it.

Are there no mismatches in the football World Cup?

Sean_F

Farooq said:

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

A surprising number of problems can be solved through industrial-scale murder.

“Selective Culling” is how the NHS described it, in Leonard Rossiter’s final play, Dog Ends.

“They are experts, they do know best”, is how his family reassured him.

boulay

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

I have learnt from true crime programmes that a woman disappearing into the woods with a man with an axe and a saw doesn’t usually end well. Maybe just buy one of those David Cameron shepherd huts?

Sean_F

Leon said:

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

I don’t think I’d class any one of them as a “significant thinker.”

Leon

Farooq said:

Romania. Played two matches, conceded 158 points.

You might as well field a team of traffic cones.

The rugby world cup is fucking rubbish.

The football World Cup used to be like this. You’d get Germany beating Zaire 9-0 and the like

But the game grew and the skills widened and now the football World Cup in its final tournament is ultra competitive at every level, with almost zero obvious wins

SirNorfolkPassmore

Leon said:

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

The parallels with Solzhenitsyn are inescapable. I've long argued that My Booky Wook is the tome that The Gulag Archipelago could have been, and at least it is some comfort that his persecution may drive him to even greater heights.

Leon

Sean_F said:

Leon said:

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

I don’t think I’d class any one of them as a “significant thinker.”

That’s the genius of it. Naomi Klein??? Hahaha

Sean_F

Farooq said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Farooq said:

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

A surprising number of problems can be solved through industrial-scale murder.

That's what Vladimir Putin thought but turns out things are more complicated.

Well, like any policy, you need competent administrators.

This is why Putin is such an idiot. He will happily take the ideological lessons of Nazi Germany without learning the organisational lessons. All he needs is a good project manager he too could be well on his way to a destiny consisting of a can of petrol and a book of matches.

Logistics aren’t everything, but they are almost everything. That’s why fascism, Nazism, the Confederacy, all crashed and burned.

The time we really need to worry is once such movements grasp that fact.

Cyclefree

Ghedebrav said:

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

I’m asking for carpentry lessons for my birthday fwiw! Despite being terrible at woodwork at school, as I’ve got older I’ve got a little more practical and would now quite like to make a few items of my own furniture.

I'm quite good with my hands in the garden (and superb at knitting) but carpentry on this scale is a bit beyond me though I did erect 6 foot high trellises in the front garden. I've been drawing all sorts of plans and designs, though.

There are lots of off the shelf products but not quite what's needed for an exposed windy spot. I loved the whole process of building the house though so I think at some level I just want to go through it again but on a smaller scale.

turbotubbs

Leon said:

Farooq said:

Romania. Played two matches, conceded 158 points.

You might as well field a team of traffic cones.

The rugby world cup is fucking rubbish.

The football World Cup used to be like this. You’d get Germany beating Zaire 9-0 and the like

But the game grew and the skills widened and now the football World Cup in its final tournament is ultra competitive at every level, with almost zero obvious wins

England 6-2 Iran is surely comparable to the Romania defeats in the rugby. That was 2022…

Stuartinromford

DavidL said:

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

Getting elected on such a platform may be a tad problematic, however.

More importantly, it's the British Government we're presumably expecting to run this. Or worse still, Capita.

Before you know it, there will be an eighteen month list, after which they will post you a cyanide capsule which actually turns out to be an Extra Strong Mint with the label scribbled out.

Ghedebrav

Leon said:

Lol

“In 2015 readers of Prospect magazine voted Russell Brand the fourth most significant thinker in the world, behind Thomas Piketty, Yanis Varoufakis and Naomi Klein.”

https://x.com/alwynturner/status/1703396822901731361?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

Feckin’ hell. Who was fifth? Count von Count?

Tbf I don’t think I’ve read Prospect since about 2007 - maybe just realised that it was pretty boring.

Incidentally also I’d forgotten that funny period of Varoufakis-mania. What an odd time that was.

Sean_F

Mexicanpete said:

Sean_F said:

If we introduced euthanasia for those elderly who cannot afford to support themselves, then surely, the problem would be solved.

Voluntary or mandatory?

It would have to be mandatory.

rcs1000

another_richard said:

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Why don't we simply cap the number of pensioners?

turbotubbs

Farooq said:

turbotubbs said:

Farooq said:

Romania. Played two matches, conceded 158 points.

You might as well field a team of traffic cones.

The rugby world cup is fucking rubbish.

Feel free to ignore, and not post about it.

Are there no mismatches in the football World Cup?

I do feel free to not post about it. I also feel free to mention it. I hope that's ok! I kind of like rugby, but shooting fish in a barrel isn't sport. It's all a bit sad, really. I'm arguing for a better tournament, not for it to go away.

As for the football world cup, they're expanding it to 48 teams next iteration. Bound to be worse mismatches in there. I'm sure you'll hear me complain about that too, when the time comes.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Why not just have the top 4 sides in the World Cup?

Don’t forget upsets happen. Wales can testify to that, and SA against Japan.
A couple of heavy defeats in a group game does not make the World Cup rubbish.

Taz

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Why don't we simply cap the number of pensioners?

Logan’s Run.

Sean_F

Cyclefree said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

You are David Cameron AICMFP. These things are ten-a-penny now for use as home offices so if you drop the mezzanine, you can probably find one off the shelf.

I've looked. They are ghastly and expensive for what they are. The shepherds huts are unbelievably pretentious.

None of the ones I've seen are really what I'm looking for.

My wife has created something very similar, an artist’s studio, with a green roof.

Cyclefree

boulay said:

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

I have learnt from true crime programmes that a woman disappearing into the woods with a man with an axe and a saw doesn’t usually end well. Maybe just buy one of those David Cameron shepherd huts?

I'm going to start a petition to ban those daft huts. They are for stupid people with more money than sense who think of their garden as an "outdoor room" and the Cotswolds as countryside. I'd cheerfully take an axe to the whole bloody lot of them.

turbotubbs

Taz said:

rcs1000 said:

another_richard said:

People support higher spending shocker.

Better questions would be:

How much should taxes rise to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Which spending cuts should happen to maintain triple lock pensions ?

Why don't we simply cap the number of pensioners?

Logan’s Run.

Wasn’t that 30? End of PB for sure…

rcs1000

ydoethur said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

ydoethur said:

One of the many areas of national life which needs sorting out is the pension system.

I wonder if any politician will brave enough to suggest nationalising all private pensions and using the gained assets to have a much bigger state pension?

I'm not totally sure what your proposal is there. If it's to bring all the assets currently held in private pension pots into the Treasury, and to use it to boost the universal pension, then that isn't nationalisation but confiscation, and it would clearly be illegal. But maybe I've misunderstood your idea.

No, that was the idea.

And I'm mildly amused you think it would be illegal. Leaving aside the state of most private pensions which will probably ultimately have to be lifeboated anyway, the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty means they can actually pass a law to make anything legal.

The nationalisation of the railways in 1948 was, for example, done without even remotely adequate compensation (contrary to the lies of Dalton and Wolmar) but it was definitely legal.

I think you mean it would be against the right to property which is different. But if you still got a pension, even a much lower one, I think you'd be hard pressed to make that argument stick.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea, incidentally. But I'm sure it will be proposed at some point. And to be fair, it may as I note above happen to many pensions by default anyway.

Most private pensions are defined contribution.

viewcode

Cyclefree said:

One of my projects is to build a sort of woman-shed on my land: wooden, with a verandah, log burner, green roof, internal mezzanine, space for my books and yet more plants and with one side in glass so that I can bask in sunshine and views. It will be where I go to hide and dream and potter and outside will be a sort of courtyard with paths leading to gorgeously planted beds and a potager etc.

One day I will, DV, sit on a chair there after lunch, fall asleep, never wake up and my sending off will involve flowers picked from the garden.

Anyway that's the dream. But finding such a cabin or even someone to build one is surprisingly hard. But recently I got into correspondence with a carpenter who makes such cabins - but dammit - he is in the US and his cabins are gorgeous.

How infuriating. Still chit-chatting with a carpenter about roofs and verandahs and types of wood is a huge amount of fun.

What I need is a sort of local Amish community so we could have a Witness-style barn raising. I'd make the lemonade.

Completely off topic of course but if you learn that I've run away with a hunky carpenter to some remote woods somewhere you'll know why .....

I may be missing something, but shed, summer houses, and full-on log-cabins are purchasable off-the-shelf

• https://www.shedstore.co.uk/log-cabins/5x4m-log-cabins
  
• https://www.diy.com/departments/outdoor-garden/garden-buildings/DIY581028.cat
  
• https://www.wickes.co.uk/Products/Garden+Outdoor-Landscaping/Garden-Sheds+Buildings/
  

Multi-storey ones can be found here:

• https://gardenhouse24.co.uk/log-houses-sale-united-kingdom/multi-storey-houses.html
  

If you want something bespoke, this will do:

• https://www.britishlogcabins.com/gallery
  

If you want something more sophisticated, garden offices are available

• https://www.ecospacestudios.com/portfolio/studio/
  
• https://hawksbeck.co.uk/
  

Some thoughts

• Wood changes colour as it ages and is exposed, so make sure your wood is preserved in some fashion to retain the richness
  
• Many of these sheds have felt tiles. Try to get something thicker or more weatherproof
  
• If you are intending to stay inside instead of just storing tools, make sure the inside is lined and plasterboarded
  
• Planning permission is not necessary if it is within your garden and a certain distance away from the boundaries. I doubt this applies for two storey ones, tho.
  
• If you want something more sophisticated still then you are looking at modular buildings, which is a whole different ball game.