Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
But you're carefully [edit] omitting to specify incomes as being *in real terms and after tax, bearing ijn mind that the tax allowances hadn't changed for inflation*. After the Trussite inflation, that is particularly an issue.
Switch off gb news Forget the conspiracy theories Sack the nutters Go hard on corruption and favours for mates. Jail people who milk the system End the war against doctors and institutions Ditch ideological positions and dog whistle politics
Find a simple message around making hard work and enterprise pay. Reward work, tax the idle rich.
I have not watched GB news nor do I intend to
The problem is that GB News has captured the soul of the Tory party. A gig on there brings both money and influence to a number of Tory MPs.
It is largely a bunch of cranks talking to themselves, but becomes an immersive world to them.
With the wealthy hedge fund manager Paul Marshall also owning Unherd and aspiring to buy both the Telegraph and Spectator, it is very likely that what passes for right wing debate will be increasingly part of this same narrow world view.
It is a major obstacle to modernisation of the Conservative Party, and appeal to the young.
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
Why not reverse the position in oil. There are few votes under 60 in drill baby drill politics. This is not the us.
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
"...tax cuts Hunt..." has to be typed with care. Incoming taxes on huts anyone?
Good piece @RochdalePioneers, was sad inded to see Galloway and his divisive brand of politics elected in your home town.
Andrew Neil having a right go at both Sunak and Starmer in his DM piece this morning. He remembers being a young journalist through the troubles of the 1970s, and fears that things are going down the route of disfunction again - and the whole political class doesn’t appear to know or care about solutions, fiddling with Rome burns.
‘The UK is drifting, unhappy, losing faith in previously respected institutions (like the police), buffeted by extremists (often allowed to run amok), dismayed by decline, angry at the inability of the political class to do anything about it, despairing that the Westminster politico/media bubble pursues an agenda, issues and priorities (look at the obsession with Lee Anderson) which are not most people’s — and had enough of being lectured to by a disconnected, de haut en bas chattering class.
‘Yet we have a Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition incapable of speaking up for the moderate majority, who still have pride in their country and are desperate for strong leadership and guidance through the current morass — plus some hope/sign things will get better — all within the bounds of traditional British tolerance and fair play. This vacuum is dangerous.’
The Conservative party has spent the last few years whipping up Culture War against "the enemy within" and it is the core of their electoral strategy. They have deliberately and consciously whipped up hate against minority Britons.
Complaining about division and sectarianism is like a fish complaining that the water is wet.
So Sunak against Asians ? Cleverly against blacks ? Shapps against jews ? Badenoch against women ?
I suspect not.
In 'civilisation' Kenneth Clarke concludes to the effect that, the basis of success for western civilisation is having confidence in itself. The enduring point is that there are many cultural forces that seek to destroy our confidence in ourselves which is an existential problem that remains 50 years on. The objection to much 'woke' thinking is that it is not constructive as it starts from the premise that western civilisation is evil and beyond redemption. If you have this mindset as a starting point then the situation is pretty hopeless.
The point about Trump and the 'far right' is that they do exude a form of self confidence, they promise to eradicate these threats; Islamists will be deported, the negative cultural forces will be shut down through reform of institutions and universities. If your assessment of the situation is that we are in a crisis / emergency, then it has a certain appeal.
I do not recognise your characterisation of "Woke". Any confident and secure culture can take criticism, and learn from it to be a better place.
@darkage ’s critique is certainly true of some left/‘woke’ thinking - but it is, I think, also true of quite a lot of thinking on the right.
It’s a fair point, though, about the appeal of self confidence - however vile the politics itself might be. As demonstrated by everyone from the Bolsheviks to the Nazis.
I think there are at least as many on the right who find fault the country and people as on the left.
Being aware of what is wrong with the place is the first step in improving it, whatever your politics.
The idea that we should reject all cultural and historical criticism is not self confidence, it is insecure arrogance. It makes for an eggshell society that collapses quickly.
Firstly, rejecting 'woke' is not the same as 'rejecting all cultural and historical criticism'. It is about trying to look objectively at things like slavery, colonialism etc, noting that they are constants throughout history and exist in much of the world now, and not simply through the prism of disgust over events that took place many decades and centuries before. It is the same thing as rejecting appeals to blind patriotism or baseless allegations of Islamists taking over cities by the 'woke right'.
Secondly, it seems to me that the 'eggshell society that collapses quickly' is the one we have at the moment and was being described by the prime minister yesterday; one that is heavily disrupted by extremists, but with the government is largely powerless to do anything.
Regarding the 'woke right', I just don't see it as any different to the 'woke left'. It was obvious that we would get something like this and it feels like a necessary antithesis, it is actually quite productive for the state of discourse as a whole, despite the obvious dangers.
Signing off now for the day - my flat desperately needs cleaning.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Ps. Never understood why the Tories have ditched their green agenda. Would have thought there was a long term strategic fit between conservatism and conservation. Doing a 180 on Cameron’s positioning and going all in on oil certainly has no long term future. Bizarre
The Conservatives long ceased to have any truck with conserving things.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
And yet spending on the NHS has never been higher. Record numbers of staff of all kinds.
It’s almost as if giving money to an organisation doesn’t automatically generate results.
Is that really an argument to re-elect the Tories? That they have made the NHS so inefficient and unproductive that increased staffing and finance has led to worse outcomes and waiting lists?
It is an outstanding confession of maladministration and incompetence.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
You're making the mistake of believing that what you think is what most voters think.
Ps. Never understood why the Tories have ditched their green agenda. Would have thought there was a long term strategic fit between conservatism and conservation. Doing a 180 on Cameron’s positioning and going all in on oil certainly has no long term future. Bizarre
I assume it is because, fundamentally, they have known since at least May's disastrous election that they are on the precipice and their strategy has been shaped by "not losing the 15% of voters on the right" while hoping to hang on to ~10-15% in the centre. The 2019 win against terrible opposition from both Labour and LD gave them an artificial belief that this was working.
Whether this ultimately proves effective in avoiding extinction remains to be seen. Either way it has caused long term, structural issues for the Party that may be worse than wipeout and bounce back.
So, what do the Tories do to attract younger voters, say those who are about to retire? There’s nothing aspirational about becoming a Tory. All parties are weird to an extent, but this current incarnation of the Tory party is bizarre.
As a sort of fellow traveller with the Tory Party what I would be looking for is a party that believes in aspiration, progress and opportunity. That wants equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That recognises that the role of the State is to help those who need it, not to nanny, bully or direct those who don't. Who believe in sound money, low inflation and low debts so that we do not spend our children's inheritance.
There will always be plenty of space for a centre right party in this country, indeed I would go so far as to say it is the natural party of government of this country. I am just not sure that the current Conservative party is it.
Sounds more like the Lib Dems to me, but I agree.
I cannot see myself voting Conservative again. I simply don't agree with their world view.
I have commented a number of times that I tend to agree, often strongly, with just about every post of @DavidL, yet I am a Liberal, albeit of the Orange Book variety, and have been all my life.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
You're making the mistake of believing that what you think is what most voters think.
And you're making the mistake of thinking that politicians maintain an environment of inflation busting pension hikes and property values, year after year, decade after decades, out of the kindness of their hearts.
They ain't. It's to butter up their favoured voters, because that is what those voters want.
Ps. Never understood why the Tories have ditched their green agenda. Would have thought there was a long term strategic fit between conservatism and conservation. Doing a 180 on Cameron’s positioning and going all in on oil certainly has no long term future. Bizarre
The Conservatives long ceased to have any truck with conserving things.
Not just the environment and landscape. They also used to believe in British institutions such as the BBC, the Civil Service, the Police, the Armed Forces etc. They don't seem interested in conserving these now either.
Good piece @RochdalePioneers, was sad inded to see Galloway and his divisive brand of politics elected in your home town.
Andrew Neil having a right go at both Sunak and Starmer in his DM piece this morning. He remembers being a young journalist through the troubles of the 1970s, and fears that things are going down the route of disfunction again - and the whole political class doesn’t appear to know or care about solutions, fiddling with Rome burns.
‘The UK is drifting, unhappy, losing faith in previously respected institutions (like the police), buffeted by extremists (often allowed to run amok), dismayed by decline, angry at the inability of the political class to do anything about it, despairing that the Westminster politico/media bubble pursues an agenda, issues and priorities (look at the obsession with Lee Anderson) which are not most people’s — and had enough of being lectured to by a disconnected, de haut en bas chattering class.
‘Yet we have a Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition incapable of speaking up for the moderate majority, who still have pride in their country and are desperate for strong leadership and guidance through the current morass — plus some hope/sign things will get better — all within the bounds of traditional British tolerance and fair play. This vacuum is dangerous.’
The Conservative party has spent the last few years whipping up Culture War against "the enemy within" and it is the core of their electoral strategy. They have deliberately and consciously whipped up hate against minority Britons.
Complaining about division and sectarianism is like a fish complaining that the water is wet.
So Sunak against Asians ? Cleverly against blacks ? Shapps against jews ? Badenoch against women ?
I suspect not.
In 'civilisation' Kenneth Clarke concludes to the effect that, the basis of success for western civilisation is having confidence in itself. The enduring point is that there are many cultural forces that seek to destroy our confidence in ourselves which is an existential problem that remains 50 years on. The objection to much 'woke' thinking is that it is not constructive as it starts from the premise that western civilisation is evil and beyond redemption. If you have this mindset as a starting point then the situation is pretty hopeless.
The point about Trump and the 'far right' is that they do exude a form of self confidence, they promise to eradicate these threats; Islamists will be deported, the negative cultural forces will be shut down through reform of institutions and universities. If your assessment of the situation is that we are in a crisis / emergency, then it has a certain appeal.
"Woke" is not a useful definition when people mainly apply that term to disrespect others promoting supposedly progressive ideas. But if we try to make it a little specific and take say DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) as an example of "woke" then the starting point is that these people are trying to make western civilisation more diverse, equitable and inclusive, which seems like a good thing, while the "anti-woke" despise a western civilisation that is diverse, equitable and inclusive.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
And yet spending on the NHS has never been higher. Record numbers of staff of all kinds.
It’s almost as if giving money to an organisation doesn’t automatically generate results.
Is that really an argument to re-elect the Tories? That they have made the NHS so inefficient and unproductive that increased staffing and finance has led to worse outcomes and waiting lists?
It is an outstanding confession of maladministration and incompetence.
Besides which, chucking more and more money at the healthcare system is the inevitable consequence of labouring under the burden of a population that is not merely getting older but fatter as well. And the more the system struggles, the sicker (and therefore more expensive) all the patients stick in endless queues for treatment become. We are, in this as so many other things, trapped in a doom loop with no obvious means of escape.
I’m old enough to remember when The Scotsman had an even-handed, apolitical approach to the doings of the day (which makes me pretty fcking old). Just had a Proustian flash back that’s made me feel faint.
Ps. Never understood why the Tories have ditched their green agenda. Would have thought there was a long term strategic fit between conservatism and conservation. Doing a 180 on Cameron’s positioning and going all in on oil certainly has no long term future. Bizarre
The Conservatives long ceased to have any truck with conserving things.
Not just the environment and landscape. They also used to believe in British institutions such as the BBC, the Civil Service, the Police, the Armed Forces etc. They don't seem interested in conserving these now either.
And conserving never meant "my institution, right or wrong." For example, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was brought in in 1984 *in order* to conserve a police force that was unfit for purpose.
Compare that with the way this government has handled the met.
Or the Insider Trading legislation in 1980/1985. Designed to regulate the explosive growth in financial services. Compare with assorted Baronesses and Cabinet Ministers.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
Mr. 43, taking something at face value is unwise. The Ministry of Truth was not concerned with propagating the truth. The 'diversity' (unless it's Wakanda in which case an ethno-state is super awesome) agenda has been used as one of the many failings of Rings of Power, as it bastardises an Anglo-Saxon/English mythology (the specific reason Tolkien wrote LotR* as the English didn't have tales to compare to Norse or Greek myth), and revises and falsifies history (most infamously with Cleopatra in the Netflix 'documentary').
*The special irony here is that if the muppets in charge knew Middle-Earth better they could've just had the story focused in Harad or Rhun, perhaps telling the tale of the fall of a powerful leader to become a Nazgul. They could even, with Black Numenoreans, have had canonically accurate white bad guys.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
The very best people get more left wing as they get older. A minority, but they’re the ones paying attention not distracted by comfort and baubles. You have to love an 80 year old who still wants to change the world.
As one of the, I think, two posters who are 80+, thank you! I’ve never thought that the world was as good as it could be, and while there was a time when it was better for me, that was because I was fit and strong, not old and physically feeble. I want a better world for my children and grandchildren. That’s why I don’t vote Conservative.
There are at least five of us who are 80+. I'm 81 next month.
I'm a Red Lib Dem who has become more anti-Tory as I've matured. And tomorrow I'm off for a week of skiing in France so I won't be around as much.
Always willing to learn. Glad to find out both that there are at least five over 80’s and that you are fit and well. A word of warning, though. I was reasonably fit at 80, but, looking back, there were signs of problems in the future. By 84 my general fitness was significantly worse. So enjoy your skiing and make some memories!
Thanks. I will take note and make the most of it while I can.
I'm still doing the Canadian Airforce exercises that I started at Uni over 60 years ago.
The five over 80s I think are you, BigG, me, Geoff and Jim. There may be others. Born in the 2nd World War. we've lived the life and have experienced of all seven ages of man. Well - the first six anyway.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
Mr. Romford, politicians increasingly fixated on the democratic cycle and electoral advantage means more priority for spending for headlines and disregard for borrowing and long term consequences. Likewise, a short-termist, delinquent, and sensationalist media are better suited, and inclined, towards reporting on scandal and personal drama than legislation and the long term national interest.
Mr. 43, taking something at face value is unwise. The Ministry of Truth was not concerned with propagating the truth. The 'diversity' (unless it's Wakanda in which case an ethno-state is super awesome) agenda has been used as one of the many failings of Rings of Power, as it bastardises an Anglo-Saxon/English mythology (the specific reason Tolkien wrote LotR* as the English didn't have tales to compare to Norse or Greek myth), and revises and falsifies history (most infamously with Cleopatra in the Netflix 'documentary').
*The special irony here is that if the muppets in charge knew Middle-Earth better they could've just had the story focused in Harad or Rhun, perhaps telling the tale of the fall of a powerful leader to become a Nazgul. They could even, with Black Numenoreans, have had canonically accurate white bad guys.
Possibly. History is littered with good intentions corruptly applied. Nevertheless, @darkage was talking about premises people start from and that was the point I addressed.
Also "woke" really isn't a useful thing, except as an insult that usually says more about the person making it than the target.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
So, what do the Tories do to attract younger voters, say those who are about to retire? There’s nothing aspirational about becoming a Tory. All parties are weird to an extent, but this current incarnation of the Tory party is bizarre.
As a sort of fellow traveller with the Tory Party what I would be looking for is a party that believes in aspiration, progress and opportunity. That wants equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That recognises that the role of the State is to help those who need it, not to nanny, bully or direct those who don't. Who believe in sound money, low inflation and low debts so that we do not spend our children's inheritance.
There will always be plenty of space for a centre right party in this country, indeed I would go so far as to say it is the natural party of government of this country. I am just not sure that the current Conservative party is it.
Sounds more like the Lib Dems to me, but I agree.
I cannot see myself voting Conservative again. I simply don't agree with their world view.
I have commented a number of times that I tend to agree, often strongly, with just about every post of @DavidL, yet I am a Liberal, albeit of the Orange Book variety, and have been all my life.
It may in part be the difference between Scottish and English politics, but I have often found @DavidL closer to my political and economic thinking than nearly all others on here.
The Tories actively hate younger voters like me who have worked all our lives so far and apparently are entitled and woke. Not a surprise we’ve all walked away.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
And yet spending on the NHS has never been higher. Record numbers of staff of all kinds.
It’s almost as if giving money to an organisation doesn’t automatically generate results.
We have a larger population than ever, and an ageing population, so record numbers of staff is not a helpful statistic.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
@Benpointer Just to make sure you see it you pompous little arse.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You're just too easy to wind up you silly old fool. Go back to counting your stash of dosh.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
NEST pensions Sharia fund has been a very good performer over past 5 years (annual rate +16.7%) because it has invested in Apple and other tech stocks and avoided banks.
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
You can't have a party that credibly expects to run the country that has such low levels of support among people of an age where they are actually working - which obviously covers young people in their late teens and early twenties through to those at the end of their careers. Being a pensioner party is not only a political dead end, but very bad for the country.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
If the majority opinion is right then the majority won't be a problem, but everything they have said so far - as well as the demographic logic of our present situation - suggests that there is zero possibility of the latter. Their proposals to raise revenue are derisory and it looks very much as if they're going to try to legislate and regulate their way out of our problems instead, which won't work on its own.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
Depends which Europeans and Americans. The Swiss pay lower taxes than those in Massachusetts for instance but still manage high quality public services.
Though if Labour get in taxes will likely go up yes but to cut public services funding too Reeves would have to take on Labour's union paymasters which means strikes
The very best people get more left wing as they get older. A minority, but they’re the ones paying attention not distracted by comfort and baubles. You have to love an 80 year old who still wants to change the world.
As one of the, I think, two posters who are 80+, thank you! I’ve never thought that the world was as good as it could be, and while there was a time when it was better for me, that was because I was fit and strong, not old and physically feeble. I want a better world for my children and grandchildren. That’s why I don’t vote Conservative.
There are at least five of us who are 80+. I'm 81 next month.
I'm a Red Lib Dem who has become more anti-Tory as I've matured. And tomorrow I'm off for a week of skiing in France so I won't be around as much.
Always willing to learn. Glad to find out both that there are at least five over 80’s and that you are fit and well. A word of warning, though. I was reasonably fit at 80, but, looking back, there were signs of problems in the future. By 84 my general fitness was significantly worse. So enjoy your skiing and make some memories!
Well while your writing skills are still in such fine fettle you should try your hand at coywriting. Your early morning post was near perfect and what a great strapline
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You're just too easy to wind up you silly old fool. Go back to counting your stash of dosh.
Get F**Ked and take that chip off your shoulder you sad little loser.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
Agree up to a point. My concern is that the UK has spent so long getting more than it pays for (thanks to oil, privatisation, skimping on investment etc) that the return to fiscal sense is going to hurt.
But yeah. In a first world context, UK taxes aren't that high, and earned income ought to be protected as far as possible. The other caveat is that government spending needs to go on capital investment and support staff, so that front liners can deliver what they are paid to do.
Oh, and build lots and lots of public sector houses.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You have only "earned every penny" if the house you own is only worth what you paid for it. Is that the case?
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
Depends which Europeans and Americans. The Swiss pay lower taxes than those in Massachusetts for instance but still manage high quality public services.
Though if Labour get in taxes will likely go up yes but to cut public services funding too Reeves would have to take on Labour's union paymasters which means strikes
Unless they perform a complete volte face as soon as they enter office (not inconceivable since politicians are habitual liars, but I'm not holding my breath) there will be no significant tax increases. VAT on private school fees is chicken feed.
That means more cuts. If the unions think they're going to get huge pay settlements out of Reeves then they are in for a very nasty surprise.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
If the majority opinion is right then the majority won't be a problem, but everything they have said so far - as well as the demographic logic of our present situation - suggests that there is zero possibility of the latter. Their proposals to raise revenue are derisory and it looks very much as if they're going to try to legislate and regulate their way out of our problems instead, which won't work on its own.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
How do you define ‘wealth’, and what might a tax on it look like?
As an example, Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts have more than tripled since 2010, raising £15bn for the Exchequer last year.
Responding to @Taz’s unfortunately incorrect assertion that Starmer chose Ali as the candidate…
At this point I think local parties should have the power to select the candidates removed from them unless they can prove decisively over time to not choose nutjobs.
So, what do the Tories do to attract younger voters, say those who are about to retire? There’s nothing aspirational about becoming a Tory. All parties are weird to an extent, but this current incarnation of the Tory party is bizarre.
As a sort of fellow traveller with the Tory Party what I would be looking for is a party that believes in aspiration, progress and opportunity. That wants equality of opportunity, not equality of outcomes. That recognises that the role of the State is to help those who need it, not to nanny, bully or direct those who don't. Who believe in sound money, low inflation and low debts so that we do not spend our children's inheritance.
There will always be plenty of space for a centre right party in this country, indeed I would go so far as to say it is the natural party of government of this country. I am just not sure that the current Conservative party is it.
Sounds more like the Lib Dems to me, but I agree.
I cannot see myself voting Conservative again. I simply don't agree with their world view.
I have commented a number of times that I tend to agree, often strongly, with just about every post of @DavidL, yet I am a Liberal, albeit of the Orange Book variety, and have been all my life.
It may in part be the difference between Scottish and English politics, but I have often found @DavidL closer to my political and economic thinking than nearly all others on here.
Careful, he might get suspicious that we are some sort of cult trying to convert him. There is of course the possibility we are both wrong and I have spent decades supporting the wrong party.
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
You can't have a party that credibly expects to run the country that has such low levels of support among people of an age where they are actually working - which obviously covers young people in their late teens and early twenties through to those at the end of their careers. Being a pensioner party is not only a political dead end, but very bad for the country.
The median voter now is aged 50 not 30. Yes to get a comfortable majority the Conservatives need to push to build more homes to get more under 40s owning property.
However to win a narrow majority the Conservatives only need to win most voters over 45 and to win most seats they could even lose most voters under 50. So yes they can't just be a pensioner party but they don't need to be a young peoples' party to win, Labour will almost always win most young peoples votes.
Note too pensioners are not automatically Conservative or rightwing, in France Macron does best with pensioners now for example and in Canada Trudeau's Liberals do best with pensioners too. Pensioners are unlikely to vote Labour or for leftwing parties but theyay vote Liberal, as they often do locally here when pensioners vote LD in the south of England to protest against new homes being built on the greenbelt for example or new flats but still Conservative at general elections to try and keep out Labour
So, what do the Tories do to attract younger voters, say those who are about to retire? There’s nothing aspirational about becoming a Tory. All parties are weird to an extent, but this current incarnation of the Tory party is bizarre.
The feed the aspiration to retire. As will Labour when they get in. This is the point at which I remind the site once again that pensioner incomes after taking account of housing costs exceed those of working age households.
There's nothing to be gained from work unless you earn, inherit or are gifted enough to buy a house, which means you can afford to retire and plan a lifestyle of new cars every year and cruise holidays to the Amalfi Coast. Poorer people have to spend virtually everything on subsistence (food, fuel and rent) and can therefore look forward to a future of living in poverty and working until they drop down dead. This is how society chooses to show them that they are regarded as worthless.
Working life is just a slog you're meant to endure to earn retirement. If you can't afford retirement, tough.
The notion that younger people (under 50s) believe they are going to be able to retire comfortably is an entertaining one. And older but not yet retired people 50s-60s already *know* they are not going to be retiring any time soon. Is it any surprise that crossover point has reached 68?
I'm about to turn 57. It is quite depressing to contemplate another decade of working.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You have only "earned every penny" if the house you own is only worth what you paid for it. Is that the case?
I paid more than what it is worth , is that righteous enough. I have lost plenty on houses over many years.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
NEST pensions Sharia fund has been a very good performer over past 5 years (annual rate +16.7%) because it has invested in Apple and other tech stocks and avoided banks.
Banks is a funny one. Recently one of the papers had a piece contrasting US celebrity investor Warren Buffett, who does invest in banks, with UK celebrity investor Terry Smith, who won't touch them.
Firstly, rejecting 'woke' is not the same as 'rejecting all cultural and historical criticism'. It is about trying to look objectively at things like slavery, colonialism etc, noting that they are constants throughout history and exist in much of the world now, and not simply through the prism of disgust over events that took place many decades and centuries before.
You describe slavery in terms of “events that took place many decades and centuries before”. Slavery was abolished in the US one and a half centuries ago. That is not “many” centuries ago. The last known American to have been enslaved died in 1972, which is within my lifespan.
Colonialism by the British, French, Dutch etc. began coming to an end after World War II, so less than one century ago. Former colonies that gained independence in my lifetime include Seychelles, Djibouti, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Brunei, and Papua New Guinea.
So, what do the Tories do to attract younger voters, say those who are about to retire? There’s nothing aspirational about becoming a Tory. All parties are weird to an extent, but this current incarnation of the Tory party is bizarre.
A sense of purpose and direction is normally required in a successful political party. Even if people don't agree with it at first, there may come a time when they decide to give it a try (cf. Thatcherism and, nearly, Corbynism). If you don't appear to be trying to do anything in particular, people will at best vote for you because the alternatives are worse. Labour risks that at the moment but is just able to maintain a sense of being more interested in public services and climate change. What is the objective of the Conservatives (or indeed the LibDems)? They need an answer to that question, even if it's Trussism.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
If the majority opinion is right then the majority won't be a problem, but everything they have said so far - as well as the demographic logic of our present situation - suggests that there is zero possibility of the latter. Their proposals to raise revenue are derisory and it looks very much as if they're going to try to legislate and regulate their way out of our problems instead, which won't work on its own.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
How do you define ‘wealth’, and what might a tax on it look like?
As an example, Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts have more than tripled since 2010, raising £15bn for the Exchequer last year.
Stop treating capital gains more leniently than earned incomes. Land value taxation. Death duties on the bulk of estates. A higher rate of VAT on luxury spending.
There's simply no means left to pay our way that doesn't involve soaking asset wealth. Draining even more from earned incomes, and this driving more workers into benefit dependent poverty, is self defeating. That and bye bye triple lock and you might start getting somewhere.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
Depends which Europeans and Americans. The Swiss pay lower taxes than those in Massachusetts for instance but still manage high quality public services.
Though if Labour get in taxes will likely go up yes but to cut public services funding too Reeves would have to take on Labour's union paymasters which means strikes
The Swiss are a lot richer though, so a smaller percentage tax rate raises as much as a higher one here, hence better public services.
Obviously the answer is for us to get richer as a country, but that isn't straightforward, particularly when the signature policy of the current government is to increase trade barriers with our main market. Neither is it obvious that tax cuts while running a deficit will make us richer, though it may well mean we can take a taxi to the workhouse.
The way to generate growth and investment is fairly straightforward, but long term. Improve education and in work training, especially for the low skilled and less developed regions. Invest in infrastructure to lubricate trade and commerce. Have a housing market that allows both individuals and businesses to move to follow opportunity. Tackle the balance of payments deficit so we don't have to continually sell off the family furniture.
Have a health policy focused on prevention and early intervention so as to keep Britain working. Improve NHS productivity by retention and training of staff.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
NEST pensions Sharia fund has been a very good performer over past 5 years (annual rate +16.7%) because it has invested in Apple and other tech stocks and avoided banks.
Some of my green investments have done well for similar reasons. Tech stocks are often green.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.*
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
* Eg Vanguard’s target retirement date funds have a significant UK home bias - they’re about 20% invested in UK equities instead of the 4% you’d expect on an economic value basis.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
Depends which Europeans and Americans. The Swiss pay lower taxes than those in Massachusetts for instance but still manage high quality public services.
Though if Labour get in taxes will likely go up yes but to cut public services funding too Reeves would have to take on Labour's union paymasters which means strikes
Unless they perform a complete volte face as soon as they enter office (not inconceivable since politicians are habitual liars, but I'm not holding my breath) there will be no significant tax increases. VAT on private school fees is chicken feed.
That means more cuts. If the unions think they're going to get huge pay settlements out of Reeves then they are in for a very nasty surprise.
Which means a Labour government would swiftly become deeply unpopular leaking much of its core vote to the Greens while seeing many of the big Unions withdraw funds for it and huge strikes across the public sector. The latter likely also sees some swingback to the Conservatives too by swing voters even if no tax rises.
I therefore expect to see Labour increase taxes once in government, at least on the rich and highest earners and corporations
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
My portfolio is more or less equally divided between overseas funds, and equities in the FTSE, but of those FTSE companies some have no exposure to the UK economy (Antofagasta, Airtel Africa, Standard Chartered etc).
Can you post photos of your great railway journey?
This is absolutely NOT a snide remark (really). I adore travel and love hearing other people’s travel experiences, humble or exalted, exotic or domestic, they all fascinate me. And photos are incredibly revealing
I may tease @IanB2 about his dog photos, but i always enjoy looking at them, working out where he is. And the photos liven up PB threads which - especially these recent years - can be quite gloomy
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
If the majority opinion is right then the majority won't be a problem, but everything they have said so far - as well as the demographic logic of our present situation - suggests that there is zero possibility of the latter. Their proposals to raise revenue are derisory and it looks very much as if they're going to try to legislate and regulate their way out of our problems instead, which won't work on its own.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
How do you define ‘wealth’, and what might a tax on it look like?
As an example, Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts have more than tripled since 2010, raising £15bn for the Exchequer last year.
The core problem is the cost of living, which for many means the cost of property. That's not an issue for many retired people, who mostly own their own homes without mortgages. It'd be interesting to superimpose ownership by age onto the one in the leader showing party support by age. My guess is that they match closely.
So rather than taxing more, we need to bring those costs down.
Build more; scrap a load of regulations on planning that add cost and time. Let people build what they want, where they want, subject to safety regulations, human rights laws and environmental protection. Also reform the rules around the housebuilding industry to let small and medium-sized builders flourish. Reform training and immigration to provide the labourforce necessary. Invest in the infrastructure to support the growth; borrow for that if necessary.
The alternative is that if you want to tax wealth, you'll be hitting income-poor pensioners disproportionately hard and forcing them out of their houses, which will lead to a load of politically bad TV, no matter how logical each stage is in isolation.
(And yes, there'd be plenty of NIMBY-inspired campaigning on TV too if the building reforms above went in but at least there's a counterargument that can be put there without looking callous).
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
They may have been saying it, but mostly it hasn't been true. Here's a selection of age profiles going back to 1950;
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
NEST pensions Sharia fund has been a very good performer over past 5 years (annual rate +16.7%) because it has invested in Apple and other tech stocks and avoided banks.
Some of my green investments have done well for similar reasons. Tech stocks are often green.
My ESG funds have underperformed my non-ESG funds in the last couple of years unfortunately, but that’s life.
Presumably Sharia funds wouldn’t be able to benefit if Liz Truss managed to open up pork markets for us, which is a shame.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
NEST pensions Sharia fund has been a very good performer over past 5 years (annual rate +16.7%) because it has invested in Apple and other tech stocks and avoided banks.
Some of my green investments have done well for similar reasons. Tech stocks are often green.
Which is interesting, because Google and Facebook must be two of the largest corporate energy users on the planet.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You have only "earned every penny" if the house you own is only worth what you paid for it. Is that the case?
I paid more than what it is worth , is that righteous enough. I have lost plenty on houses over many years.
If you make money on a house you bought - good for you. That’s capitalism. You took a risk - locations can go up and down in value. You presumably looked after the house so it also gained in value. There is no shame in this, it’s how housing stock improves and locations get nicer, it’s a positive thing
Someone who merely inherits a house which then makes squillions is less admirable. But I still wouldn’t criticise them morally. It’s just dumb luck. Like being born beautiful or clever or good at footbal
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.*
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
* Eg Vanguard’s target retirement date funds have a significant UK home bias - they’re about 20% invested in UK equities instead of the 4% you’d expect on an economic value basis.
Genuine idle question: what do we objectively think the stock market will do if Labour wins a comfortable majority? Dive because we're not Tories? Soar because we're more sensible? Drift until the effects become clearer? I have no idea, but some of you work in the sector. Perhaps it's already largely priced in?
You say that, but I think within 10 years people will go to jail for allowing their young children unfettered access to social media and smartphones. (Probably not in the UK).
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
They may have been saying it, but mostly it hasn't been true. Here's a selection of age profiles going back to 1950;
My older relatives tell me it was a terrible time for the UK. But that also means that neo-Thatcher will arrive in 2029. Not long to wait for the PB Tories.
According to the Telegraph, Rishi yesterday - apparently in response to tge Rochdale by-election - urged Britain to come together against the poisons of right wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
How has he managed to get right wing extremism into this? One of the features of British politics over the past decade has been the notable absence of the far right compared to elsewhere in the west, especially given the conditions which might be expected to give rise to it. It seems to be some sort of shibboleth "but don't forget the far right are just as bad/dangerous/big a threat". They just aren't. Tommy Robinson and 400 drunken idiots are nothing like the same scale of threat as radical Islam. The number of murders carried out by radical Islam over the past two decades must be about 200 times greater than that carried out by the far right. Conflating the two just isn't credible.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
And yet spending on the NHS has never been higher. Record numbers of staff of all kinds.
It’s almost as if giving money to an organisation doesn’t automatically generate results.
Is that really an argument to re-elect the Tories? That they have made the NHS so inefficient and unproductive that increased staffing and finance has led to worse outcomes and waiting lists?
It is an outstanding confession of maladministration and incompetence.
It’s not an argument to re-elect the Tories.
It’s an argument that we need to change how we run large organisations, to improve productivity.
It is the miracle of productivity, through mechanisation, that allows us to have an NHS in the first place. In a blink of an eye (in terms of human history) we went from a world where 90%+ laboured in agriculture to maybe grow enough food, to a world where a percent or 2 can provide vast surpluses (anyone remember the European subsidy mountains?).
I’m writing a header on this - following on from The Process State - but this requires investment and real expertise. Not experts of the form of those at the DfE, but people who actually know what they are doing.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
My portfolio is more or less equally divided between overseas funds, and equities in the FTSE, but of those FTSE companies some have no exposure to the UK economy (Antofagasta, Airtel Africa, Standard Chartered etc).
What exactly do they mean by investing in the UK?
They mean to promote UK start-ups. I'm sure that it what they mean.
Trying to divert pension savings from quoted to unquoted stocks is phenomenally dangerous and they are harbouring many misconceptions about stock markets and funds along the way.
The idea that all pensioners are middle class home owners, not living in poverty is nonsense. Perhaps those known by those working in the financial district of The City are all featherbed. My experience is that they lived in places where Thatcher's booming 80s were forgotten about. There was no nest to get them through the multiple recessions. Tax the rich. Not the poor on fixed incomes that are already struggling. Maybe TSE needs to visit pensioners north of the Watford Gap (and I don't mean the leafy suburbs of Chester!).
Agree, plenty of rich whingers on here always berating pensioners and claiming they are loaded just because their parents are loaded. Pathetic.
Says the chief supporter of the 'something for nothing (for me)' society.
What are you talking about you halfwitted numpty. I have worked hard for 50 years for every penny I have , a lot harder than you would ever do you pompous arsehole. I have never had a penny from anyone for nothing and certainly not taking shit like that from a snivelling little arsehole like you, GFY.
You have only "earned every penny" if the house you own is only worth what you paid for it. Is that the case?
I paid more than what it is worth , is that righteous enough. I have lost plenty on houses over many years.
If you make money on a house you bought - good for you. That’s capitalism. You took a risk - locations can go up and down in value. You presumably looked after the house so it also gained in value. There is no shame in this, it’s how housing stock improves and locations get nicer, it’s a positive thing
Someone who merely inherits a house which then makes squillions is less admirable. But I still wouldn’t criticise them morally. It’s just dumb luck. Like being born beautiful or clever or good at footbal
This is where John Rawls steps in to the chat to talk about the Veil of Ignorance.
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
Responding to @Taz’s unfortunately incorrect assertion that Starmer chose Ali as the candidate…
At this point I think local parties should have the power to select the candidates removed from them unless they can prove decisively over time to not choose nutjobs.
That would make life interesting. The bigger the nutjob the longer the ban. Fareham would lose it for ever.
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
Not exactly. The very sharp age bias highlighted by TSE is relatively new. You used to be able to predict voting intention by income. That is now almost entirely irrelevant - it's predominantly about age.
The next question is whether people now under 65 will become Conservative as they get older and retire. My provisional answer to that is "Possibly, if the Conservatives stand for stability and caution. Not if they stand for reactionary social attitudes." Nearly all the elderly people who I know, many of them former or still Conservatives, think it's ridiculous to worry about ethnic background and sexual preference, and people like Braverman and Rees-Mogg just put them off.
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
This is fairly irrelevant to the point I was making. Whether what you say is true or not going forward, the reality is that the Tories actively don’t want my vote despite being somebody that should be prime Tory.
I inherited money, I’m pretty well off from a privileged background, I earn a very good salary yet I’m as far away from the Tories as I have ever been.
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
A good rule of thumb: worry less about where you are investing it and worry more about the costs you are paying. The former is unpredictable; the latter is known.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.*
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
* Eg Vanguard’s target retirement date funds have a significant UK home bias - they’re about 20% invested in UK equities instead of the 4% you’d expect on an economic value basis.
Genuine idle question: what do we objectively think the stock market will do if Labour wins a comfortable majority? Dive because we're not Tories? Soar because we're more sensible? Drift until the effects become clearer? I have no idea, but some of you work in the sector. Perhaps it's already largely priced in?
Markets like certainty and stability so unless there’s a big planned tax rise in the manifesto that would hit corporate earnings they would probably firm up a bit with a large majority (I assume we’re talking equity markets). But given the makeup of the UK’s largest companies global factors are far more important.
The things to look at that are more directly linked to government action are the debt markets and FX. I’d expect a small bump up in GBP based on expectations of smoother EU trade, and little or no movement in bonds.
The other thing about stock-markets, often missed, is the role of the XR.
The pound is down the toilet and if it deteriorates further overseas holding will increase in value by XR alone. So if you think the pound will weaken from here overseas funds make more sense and vice versa.
The very best people get more left wing as they get older. A minority, but they’re the ones paying attention not distracted by comfort and baubles. You have to love an 80 year old who still wants to change the world.
As one of the, I think, two posters who are 80+, thank you! I’ve never thought that the world was as good as it could be, and while there was a time when it was better for me, that was because I was fit and strong, not old and physically feeble. I want a better world for my children and grandchildren. That’s why I don’t vote Conservative.
There are at least five of us who are 80+. I'm 81 next month.
I'm a Red Lib Dem who has become more anti-Tory as I've matured. And tomorrow I'm off for a week of skiing in France so I won't be around as much.
Always willing to learn. Glad to find out both that there are at least five over 80’s and that you are fit and well. A word of warning, though. I was reasonably fit at 80, but, looking back, there were signs of problems in the future. By 84 my general fitness was significantly worse. So enjoy your skiing and make some memories!
Well while your writing skills are still in such fine fettle you should try your hand at coywriting. Your early morning post was near perfect and what a great strapline
"That's why I don't vote Conservative"
Thank you. I’m not deliberately chasing compliments this morning, just seems to be working out that way! One of my hobbies is Creative Writing; I used, during my working days, to write comment columns for professional magazines, which colleagues said sometimes bordered on fiction. I’ve not managed to get any fiction published, though. Maybe one day, possibly posthumously!
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
A good rule of thumb: worry less about where you are investing it and worry more about the costs you are paying. The former is unpredictable; the latter is known.
I made that change a couple of years ago. Moved from expensive actively managed funds to cheap trackers.
Unfortunately I timed it atrociously so I sold up everything just before the Russian invasion when markets were tanking then bought back after a couple of weeks of rebound. Just because the switch process took so long for reasons I won’t bore you with.
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
They may have been saying it, but mostly it hasn't been true. Here's a selection of age profiles going back to 1950;
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
You are investing into the late middle of the upswing.
It will be about 24 months before the trough of disillusionment when all the overexcited consuming businesses realise their massive spending on AI tech is not helping them (not because of the tech but because the consuming business still doesn't know what it is actually doing). The bubble will dry up at that point.
So all is well for now! IMHO. This is does not constitute advice etc. etc.
According to the Telegraph, Rishi yesterday - apparently in response to tge Rochdale by-election - urged Britain to come together against the poisons of right wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
How has he managed to get right wing extremism into this? One of the features of British politics over the past decade has been the notable absence of the far right compared to elsewhere in the west, especially given the conditions which might be expected to give rise to it. It seems to be some sort of shibboleth "but don't forget the far right are just as bad/dangerous/big a threat". They just aren't. Tommy Robinson and 400 drunken idiots are nothing like the same scale of threat as radical Islam. The number of murders carried out by radical Islam over the past two decades must be about 200 times greater than that carried out by the far right. Conflating the two just isn't credible.
You’re right of course. But they do it to appear “balanced”. Otherwise ONLY focusing on Islam and Islamism might seem Islamophobic
It is a bit mad tho. Its a bit like Churchill giving one of his stirring 1940 speeches about the Nazi threat and then constantly saying “and let us not ignore the possible Irish invasion from Dublin, with Aer Lingus bombers cruising over Liverpool “
What a load of hot air and hysteria from the so called main stream politicians yesterday and the Mail this morning. Grief they should have been around at the time of Suez and the Vietnam War, the demos in Trafalgar and Grosvenor Squares. Our current bunch really are a bunch of wimps.
'When Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, approved plans to build the Woodhouse Colliery near Whitehaven in December 2022, he said the UK would need the coal in order to carry on making steel.
But the newly revealed documents, drafted around the same time at the then Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), say the opposite. According to these papers, officials predict with “high certainty” that technology such as electric arc furnaces will lead to the successful decarbonisation of UK steel production by 2035.'
TBF to Gove - which really does go against the grain, but still - given how wrong officials in every government department are about every single issue, that's not a particularly compelling argument.
For example, DfT officials say we don't need HS2 to deliver rail improvements in the north and midlands. They're lying.
DfE officials say OFSTED is safe around children. They're lying.
DoH officials say the NHS is coping. They're lying.
If I had such a briefing paper unless it was direct from an actual expert in the field I would ignore it.
The snag with Gove is he doesn't listen to experts *either.*
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
You are investing into the late middle of the upswing.
It will be about 24 months before the trough of disillusionment when all the overexcited consuming businesses realise their massive spending on AI tech is not helping them (not because of the tech but because the consuming business still doesn't know what it is actually doing). The bubble will dry up at that point.
So all is well for now! IMHO. This is does not constitute advice etc. etc.
That would be the normal pattern
But the advent of AI is not normal. It is not normal at all
See we've segued very nicely from "the country is fucked because of wealth inequality" to the best returns on my tens of thousands of cash lying around with barely a pause for breath.
Switch off gb news Forget the conspiracy theories Sack the nutters Go hard on corruption and favours for mates. Jail people who milk the system End the war against doctors and institutions Ditch ideological positions and dog whistle politics
Find a simple message around making hard work and enterprise pay. Reward work, tax the idle rich.
I have not watched GB news nor do I intend to
Congratulations. It’s a cesspit. You’re on the right path.
A few days ago, we were comparing the current government to the 1974-79 one.
Back then, the increasingly-troublesome fringe of the governing party were distracted by giving them a motorbike company to play with.
Today, the fringe of the governing party is instead playing with a TV station.
...and it turns out that you can do a hell of a lot more harm to your party with a TV station than with a worker's co-op.
Yet the only major tax cuts Hunt has pushed through this parliament have been to national insurance which workers pay but pensioners don't, so the main benefit went to workers. However still no poll reward. Yes more homes could be built to get more under 40s on the housing ladder but the Conservatives lost them even in 2019 when they won a landslide nationally.
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
"...tax cuts Hunt..." has to be typed with care. Incoming taxes on huts anyone?
You haven't lived until you've tried to write a PowerPoint on the Danish empire of 1020-42 for Year 9 with autocorrect on.
King Cnut was renamed in ways that were not altogether appropriate for that age group.
Chaos coming in the Defined Contribution Pension market - If funds have a bad year will not be able to accept new contributions and have to invest in UK business -what a UK business is not defined.. They are doing well currently because they invest in Apple and Meta -non UK companies.
What the fuck is this?
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
I shifted my pot to a more global focus recently, sadly UK investment has underperformed for years. Requirement for growth and British investment seems sadly to be almost mutually exclusive
So we’ve gone from the “UK pension funds must invest in UK plc” to “UK pension funds must say how much they invest in UK plc”. Big whoop. This is going to rebound on the government - people are going to look at their pension fund, ask ”why exactly am I investing 25% of my money in the UK?” and move their savings into other markets.
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
My portfolio is more or less equally divided between overseas funds, and equities in the FTSE, but of those FTSE companies some have no exposure to the UK economy (Antofagasta, Airtel Africa, Standard Chartered etc).
What exactly do they mean by investing in the UK?
They mean to promote UK start-ups. I'm sure that it what they mean.
Trying to divert pension savings from quoted to unquoted stocks is phenomenally dangerous and they are harbouring many misconceptions about stock markets and funds along the way.
On the other hand a balanced portfolio includes a certain amount of Mad Money.
One problem in finance is the endless search for large, stable companies with big returns. This in turn promotes the behaviour we see at Thames Water - chasing investment from big funds with financial engineering.
Investing in startups requires lots of effort and knowledge. And work.
Responding to @Taz’s unfortunately incorrect assertion that Starmer chose Ali as the candidate…
At this point I think local parties should have the power to select the candidates removed from them unless they can prove decisively over time to not choose nutjobs.
As promised I invested several tens of thousands in mainly tech stock recently. With a more general US stock market tracker fund and a mad risky one on the Indian stock market
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
You are investing into the late middle of the upswing.
It will be about 24 months before the trough of disillusionment when all the overexcited consuming businesses realise their massive spending on AI tech is not helping them (not because of the tech but because the consuming business still doesn't know what it is actually doing). The bubble will dry up at that point.
So all is well for now! IMHO. This is does not constitute advice etc. etc.
That would be the normal pattern
But the advent of AI is not normal. It is not normal at all
It is going through the same cycle though. I have a bunch of clients (small and very large) who are struggling with the exact same questions they struggled with when the MICROCOMPUTER came on the scene, and then THE CLOUD. Both transformative tech but took 20-25 years to get through the hype cycle.
(FWIW I would hang on to the investments through the bubble though because it *is* a tech that will stick into the long tail; but there are a bunch of things that need to happen before we get to that point and a whole regulatory nightmare to deal with).
According to the Telegraph, Rishi yesterday - apparently in response to tge Rochdale by-election - urged Britain to come together against the poisons of right wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
How has he managed to get right wing extremism into this? One of the features of British politics over the past decade has been the notable absence of the far right compared to elsewhere in the west, especially given the conditions which might be expected to give rise to it. It seems to be some sort of shibboleth "but don't forget the far right are just as bad/dangerous/big a threat". They just aren't. Tommy Robinson and 400 drunken idiots are nothing like the same scale of threat as radical Islam. The number of murders carried out by radical Islam over the past two decades must be about 200 times greater than that carried out by the far right. Conflating the two just isn't credible.
Over the past two decades, so since 2004… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain lists events in GB, so excluding NI. I count 91 murders by radical Islam versus 2 by the far right. That’s a ratio of 45.5:1, which is somewhat less than your estimate of over 200:1.
I think Irish republican terrorism was responsible for at least 25 murders over the same period. Unionist terrorists killed at least one as well.
Heading off on one of the world’s great railway journeys shortly but just to add that the tories are also wrong to assume that bribing home owning pensioners is an infallible vote winner.
Scroll back up this page, or follow recent events on pb, and you will all know that health is rightly a major concern as people get older.
The NHS is in a terrible state. The ideological wealthy Right seem to want to run it into the ground.
The rest of us, which is 99% of the electorate, would rather like the NHS to be fit for purpose once again. And we don’t mind paying a bit more if that fixes it.
Most people will say that (and tell the same thing to pollsters) but it ain't true. They really want someone else to pay for everything. The normal target is the rich, variously defined as billionaires or anybody who earns at least £1 more than I do.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
Four combinations to consider.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services 2 Cut taxes, improve public services 3 Raise taxes, cut public services 4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
4 is eminently doable, but only through the taxation of assets (in which we have an abundance of stored wealth) rather than incomes. However, the vested interests in preserving and inflating asset wealth are too great, so nobody will dare propose it. Hence the fact that the country is circling the plughole and will eventually disappear down it. Failure seems inevitable.
I agree 4. has to be the answer. Labour need a huge majority and then the cojones to push it through.
If the majority opinion is right then the majority won't be a problem, but everything they have said so far - as well as the demographic logic of our present situation - suggests that there is zero possibility of the latter. Their proposals to raise revenue are derisory and it looks very much as if they're going to try to legislate and regulate their way out of our problems instead, which won't work on its own.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
How do you define ‘wealth’, and what might a tax on it look like?
As an example, Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts have more than tripled since 2010, raising £15bn for the Exchequer last year.
I make that about £130 billion cumulative. Average house prices have risen by about £110,000 over the same time (source:Statista.com) £110,000 x 15,500,000 houses in E&W= £1,700 billion. So an effective tax rate of about 7%, pretty low compared to income tax + NI rates.
People have been saying the Tories are the party of pensioners and have been in danger of dying out as a political force ever since I've taken an interest in politics. Since then, the Tories have won most of the elections.
This is fairly irrelevant to the point I was making. Whether what you say is true or not going forward, the reality is that the Tories actively don’t want my vote despite being somebody that should be prime Tory.
I inherited money, I’m pretty well off from a privileged background, I earn a very good salary yet I’m as far away from the Tories as I have ever been.
In the 2019 general election the Conservatives did better with those earning £20k to £40k than those earning over £50k.
Unless you voted for Brexit you are unlikely to be a prime Conservative voter now even if a well off professional. You might have been pre Brexit but you aren't now. Indeed the Conservatives are more likely to win white working class Leave voters now than upper middle class Remain voters
Comments
The Tories also need pensioners still as they are their core vote, without them they risk extinction. Whether they can win back 40 to 65 year old swing voters in opposition largely depends on the state of the economy under Labour
It is largely a bunch of cranks talking to themselves, but becomes an immersive world to them.
With the wealthy hedge fund manager Paul Marshall also owning Unherd and aspiring to buy both the Telegraph and Spectator, it is very likely that what passes for right wing debate will be increasingly part of this same narrow world view.
It is a major obstacle to modernisation of the Conservative Party, and appeal to the young.
Secondly, it seems to me that the 'eggshell society that collapses quickly' is the one we have at the moment and was being described by the prime minister yesterday; one that is heavily disrupted by extremists, but with the government is largely powerless to do anything.
Regarding the 'woke right', I just don't see it as any different to the 'woke left'. It was obvious that we would get something like this and it feels like a necessary antithesis, it is actually quite productive for the state of discourse as a whole, despite the obvious dangers.
Signing off now for the day - my flat desperately needs cleaning.
There is a good reason why the politicians won't undo the triple lock, despite the fact that it is a ratchet which must inevitably mean the progressive enrichment of retirees relative to the rest of the population (and one that's applicable just as much to pensioners with fat final salary pensions and million pound houses as it is to the archetypal impoverished widow in a one bed flat.) They won't wear it.
Most voters want more stuff paid for by other people. The biggest voting bloc is older people, so they get disproportionately rewarded, otherwise they'll go to the other lot who'll promise them more free stuff. It really is that simple.
It is an outstanding confession of maladministration and incompetence.
Whether this ultimately proves effective in avoiding extinction remains to be seen. Either way it has caused long term, structural issues for the Party that may be worse than wipeout and bounce back.
They ain't. It's to butter up their favoured voters, because that is what those voters want.
The opposite of what you say.
https://x.com/thescotsman/status/1763835616616178003?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
Compare that with the way this government has handled the met.
Or the Insider Trading legislation in 1980/1985. Designed to regulate the explosive growth in financial services. Compare with assorted Baronesses and Cabinet Ministers.
I initially thought he was talking about DB funds, which would make a little more sense, but this is specific to DC funds.
The misconceptions are breathtaking.
1) DC funds already disclose how much is invested where, geographically.
2) When a fund (or individual) invests in the shares in a company it is buying shares from existing shareholders. The stockmarket is an aftermarket. The money isn’t going to the company. TWT.
3) If he’s suggesting that funds invest more in unquoted companies and start- ups – imagine how risky this is. This is what brought Neil Woodford down. This document says specifically ‘encouraged pension funds to invest at least 5% of their assets in unlisted equity’. ‘At least’ – this is terrifying.
4) It says he wants to focus minds on how to improve funds – does he think that minds are not already focused in this competitive market already awash with comparison statistics?
5) Instructing funds to invest more in the ‘home market’ restricts, by definition, geographical diversification and therefore increases risk. This is a bad thing for savers.
6) 2012 = 90 vs 2022 = 116 represents ‘huge growth’ does it? What dunderheads.
7) He wants funds to publicly disclose ‘the returns they offer’. What? They offer no returns – these are risk investments. What it means (I assume) is disclosing what the funds’ past performances were. This is already easily available - and past performance has already happened, it is no guide to the future. (Regulation insists that this very fact is disclosed to the investor upfront.)
8) The document assumes a level of control over future returns which the fund managers simply don’t have. It would be better to focus on cost comparisons between the funds.
*The special irony here is that if the muppets in charge knew Middle-Earth better they could've just had the story focused in Harad or Rhun, perhaps telling the tale of the fall of a powerful leader to become a Nazgul. They could even, with Black Numenoreans, have had canonically accurate white bad guys.
1 Cut taxes, cut public services
2 Cut taxes, improve public services
3 Raise taxes, cut public services
4 Raise taxes, improve public services.
The one that looks most attractive is 2. We've had brief bits of it, and politicians par themselves on the back for delivering it. Sometimes it comes through economic good times, sometimes through sleight of hand.
The trade-off is often between 1 and 4. We don't like paying taxes, but we also don't like things being shitty. Americans are more comfortable with 1, Europeans with 4, it's more complicated for Britons.
The short term outlook for the UK is closer to 3. The government is borrowing like billyo, and we aren't growing our way out of this soon. And the Conservatives seem more in denial than Labour.
Perhaps they have to be, because they've been in office while this has been creeping up on us.
I'm still doing the Canadian Airforce exercises that I started at Uni over 60 years ago.
The five over 80s I think are you, BigG, me, Geoff and Jim. There may be others. Born in the 2nd World War. we've lived the life and have experienced of all seven ages of man. Well - the first six anyway.
*sighs*
Also "woke" really isn't a useful thing, except as an insult that usually says more about the person making it than the target.
The gargantuan, and growing, NHS queues and the plague of disintegrating schools are just to examples of disasters that won't be remedied without the use of a lot more money. That can only come from the taxation of wealth, which nobody appears willing to countenance.
and Americans. The Swiss
pay lower taxes than those in
Massachusetts for instance
but still manage high quality public services.
Though if Labour get in taxes will
likely go up yes but to cut public services funding too Reeves would have to take on Labour's union paymasters which means strikes
"That's why I don't vote Conservative"
But yeah. In a first world context, UK taxes aren't that high, and earned income ought to be protected as far as possible. The other caveat is that government spending needs to go on capital investment and support staff, so that front liners can deliver what they are paid to do.
Oh, and build lots and lots of public sector houses.
That means more cuts. If the unions think they're going to get huge pay settlements out of Reeves then they are in for a very nasty surprise.
As an example, Stamp Duty Land Tax receipts have more than tripled since 2010, raising £15bn for the Exchequer last year.
At this point I think local parties should have the power to select the candidates removed from them unless they can prove decisively over time to not choose nutjobs.
However to win a narrow majority the Conservatives only need to win most voters over 45 and to win most seats they could even lose most voters under 50. So yes they can't just be a pensioner party but they don't need to be a young peoples' party to win, Labour will almost always win most young peoples votes.
Note too pensioners are not automatically Conservative or rightwing, in France Macron does best with pensioners now for example and in Canada Trudeau's Liberals do best with pensioners too. Pensioners are unlikely to vote Labour or for leftwing parties but theyay vote Liberal, as they often do locally here when pensioners vote LD in the south of England to protest against new homes being built on the greenbelt for example or new flats but still Conservative at general elections to try and keep out Labour
Colonialism by the British, French, Dutch etc. began coming to an end after World War II, so less than one century ago. Former colonies that gained independence in my lifetime include Seychelles, Djibouti, Mozambique, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Brunei, and Papua New Guinea.
There's simply no means left to pay our way that doesn't involve soaking asset wealth. Draining even more from earned incomes, and this driving more workers into benefit dependent poverty, is self defeating. That and bye bye triple lock and you might start getting somewhere.
Obviously the answer is for us to get richer as a country, but that isn't straightforward, particularly when the signature policy of the current government is to increase trade barriers with our main market. Neither is it obvious that tax cuts while running a deficit will make us richer, though it may well mean we can take a taxi to the workhouse.
The way to generate growth and investment is fairly straightforward, but long term. Improve education and in work training, especially for the low skilled and less developed regions. Invest in infrastructure to lubricate trade and commerce. Have a housing market that allows both individuals and businesses to move to follow opportunity. Tackle the balance of payments deficit so we don't have to continually sell off the family furniture.
Have a health policy focused on prevention and early intervention so as to keep Britain working. Improve NHS productivity by retention and training of staff.
Personally, I will weight the UK more heavily in my pension when the UK government starts showing equivalent faith by investing in the necessary UK infrastructure to allow the growth in UK plc that would make such a weighting worthwhile. Until such time, the UK is not going to be getting my cash sadly - I can’t afford to put my pension into a country with such poor prospects for economic growth that it’s own government won’t invest in it.
* Eg Vanguard’s target retirement date funds have a significant UK home bias - they’re about 20% invested in UK equities instead of the 4% you’d expect on an economic value basis.
I therefore expect to see Labour increase taxes once in government, at least on the rich and highest earners and corporations
What exactly do they mean by investing in the UK?
Can you post photos of your great railway journey?
This is absolutely NOT a snide remark (really). I adore travel and love hearing other people’s travel experiences, humble or exalted, exotic or domestic, they all fascinate me. And photos are incredibly revealing
I may tease @IanB2 about his dog photos, but i always enjoy looking at them, working out where he is. And the photos liven up PB threads which - especially these recent years - can be quite gloomy
Cheers from a rather rubbish lounge at LHRT4
Prosecco for scale
So rather than taxing more, we need to bring those costs down.
Build more; scrap a load of regulations on planning that add cost and time. Let people build what they want, where they want, subject to safety regulations, human rights laws and environmental protection. Also reform the rules around the housebuilding industry to let small and medium-sized builders flourish. Reform training and immigration to provide the labourforce necessary. Invest in the infrastructure to support the growth; borrow for that if necessary.
The alternative is that if you want to tax wealth, you'll be hitting income-poor pensioners disproportionately hard and forcing them out of their houses, which will lead to a load of politically bad TV, no matter how logical each stage is in isolation.
(And yes, there'd be plenty of NIMBY-inspired campaigning on TV too if the building reforms above went in but at least there's a counterargument that can be put there without looking callous).
https://twitter.com/Dylan_Difford/status/1763677561597415825
This time really is different.
Presumably Sharia funds wouldn’t be able to benefit if Liz Truss managed to open up pork markets for us, which is a shame.
If you make money on a house you bought - good for you. That’s capitalism. You took a risk - locations can go up and down in value. You presumably looked after the house so it also gained in value. There is no shame in this, it’s how housing stock improves and locations get nicer, it’s a positive thing
Someone who merely inherits a house which then makes squillions is less admirable. But I still wouldn’t criticise them morally. It’s just dumb luck. Like being born beautiful or clever or good at footbal
My older relatives tell me it was a terrible time for the UK. But that also means that neo-Thatcher will arrive in 2029. Not long to wait for the PB Tories.
How has he managed to get right wing extremism into this? One of the features of British politics over the past decade has been the notable absence of the far right compared to elsewhere in the west, especially given the conditions which might be expected to give rise to it. It seems to be some sort of shibboleth "but don't forget the far right are just as bad/dangerous/big a threat". They just aren't. Tommy Robinson and 400 drunken idiots are nothing like the same scale of threat as radical Islam. The number of murders carried out by radical Islam over the past two decades must be about 200 times greater than that carried out by the far right.
Conflating the two just isn't credible.
It’s an argument that we need to change how we run large organisations, to improve productivity.
It is the miracle of productivity, through mechanisation, that allows us to have an NHS in the first place. In a blink of an eye (in terms of human history) we went from a world where 90%+ laboured in agriculture to maybe grow enough food, to a world where a percent or 2 can provide vast surpluses (anyone remember the European subsidy mountains?).
I’m writing a header on this - following on from The Process State - but this requires investment and real expertise. Not experts of the form of those at the DfE, but people who actually know what they are doing.
Trying to divert pension savings from quoted to unquoted stocks is phenomenally dangerous and they are harbouring many misconceptions about stock markets and funds along the way.
So far doing ok. Tech just marches on. The bubble will burst eventually but with AI so dominant I can’t see it happening soon, unless governments intervene and pull the plug (literally)
The next question is whether people now under 65 will become Conservative as they get older and retire. My provisional answer to that is "Possibly, if the Conservatives stand for stability and caution. Not if they stand for reactionary social attitudes." Nearly all the elderly people who I know, many of them former or still Conservatives, think it's ridiculous to worry about ethnic background and sexual preference, and people like Braverman and Rees-Mogg just put them off.
I inherited money, I’m pretty well off from a privileged background, I earn a very good salary yet I’m as far away from the Tories as I have ever been.
The things to look at that are more directly linked to government action are the debt markets and FX. I’d expect a small bump up in GBP based on expectations of smoother EU trade, and little or no movement in bonds.
The pound is down the toilet and if it deteriorates further overseas holding will increase in value by XR alone. So if you think the pound will weaken from here overseas funds make more sense and vice versa.
One of my hobbies is Creative Writing; I used, during my working days, to write comment columns for professional magazines, which colleagues said sometimes bordered on fiction.
I’ve not managed to get any fiction published, though. Maybe one day, possibly posthumously!
Unfortunately I timed it atrociously so I sold up everything just before the Russian invasion when markets were tanking then bought back after a couple of weeks of rebound. Just because the switch process took so long for reasons I won’t bore you with.
If the economy is bad under a Labour swing voters aged 40 to 65 will be back in play for them too maybe even voters younger than that
It will be about 24 months before the trough of disillusionment when all the overexcited consuming businesses realise their massive spending on AI tech is not helping them (not because of the tech but because the consuming business still doesn't know what it is actually doing). The bubble will dry up at that point.
So all is well for now! IMHO. This is does not constitute advice etc. etc.
It is a bit mad tho. Its a bit like Churchill giving one of his stirring 1940 speeches about the Nazi threat and then constantly saying “and let us not ignore the possible Irish invasion from Dublin, with Aer Lingus bombers cruising over Liverpool “
Grief they should have been around at the time of Suez and the Vietnam War, the demos in Trafalgar and Grosvenor Squares. Our current bunch really are a bunch of wimps.
For example, DfT officials say we don't need HS2 to deliver rail improvements in the north and midlands. They're lying.
DfE officials say OFSTED is safe around children. They're lying.
DoH officials say the NHS is coping. They're lying.
If I had such a briefing paper unless it was direct from an actual expert in the field I would ignore it.
The snag with Gove is he doesn't listen to experts *either.*
But the advent of AI is not normal. It is not normal at all
Back then, the increasingly-troublesome fringe of the governing party were distracted by giving them a motorbike company to play with.
Today, the fringe of the governing party is instead playing with a TV station.
...and it turns out that you can do a hell of a lot more harm to your party with a TV station than with a worker's co-op.
King Cnut was renamed in ways that were not altogether appropriate for that age group.
One problem in finance is the endless search for large, stable companies with big returns. This in turn promotes the behaviour we see at Thames Water - chasing investment from big funds with financial engineering.
Investing in startups requires lots of effort and knowledge. And work.
(FWIW I would hang on to the investments through the bubble though because it *is* a tech that will stick into the long tail; but there are a bunch of things that need to happen before we get to that point and a whole regulatory nightmare to deal with).
I think Irish republican terrorism was responsible for at least 25 murders over the same period. Unionist terrorists killed at least one as well.
Average house prices have risen by about £110,000 over the same time (source:Statista.com)
£110,000 x 15,500,000 houses in E&W= £1,700 billion.
So an effective tax rate of about 7%, pretty low compared to income tax + NI rates.
Unless you voted for Brexit you are unlikely to be a prime Conservative voter now even if a well off professional. You might have been pre Brexit but you aren't now. Indeed the Conservatives are more likely to win white working class Leave voters now than upper middle class Remain voters
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/mar/02/parents-didnt-want-their-kids-to-be-here-inside-the-troubled-london-school-that-stopped-excluding-pupils-and-restored-calm