My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
I'd swop GA and WI. They both have 16 electoral votes. My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
I presume you mean swap GA and MI. MI only has 15 electoral votes this time round.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
I'd swop GA and WI. They both have 16 electoral votes. My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
I presume you mean swap GA and MI. MI only has 15 electoral votes this time round.
It would be epic karma if Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral college.
But - I don't think the first is very likely. The Republicans are increasingly playing to their base and he's a divisive candidate even among them.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
I'd swop GA and WI. They both have 16 electoral votes. My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
I presume you mean swap GA and MI. MI only has 15 electoral votes this time round.
It would be epic karma if Trump won the popular vote and lost the electoral college.
But - I don't think the first is very likely. The Republicans are increasingly playing to their base and he's a divisive candidate even among them.
That's the hope I'm clinging to. Bolstered by the few conversations I've had with random Americans along the lines of 'Biden's pretty awful but no way can we let Trump back in'.
It's hardly scientific but it helps me sleep at night.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
While Rishi Sunak was lecturing the nation last night about our duty to reject those promoting division and intolerance, here's what his own party was doing
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
Hmm.
I would be interested to see how many have died during transition surgery vs the number of women who have died from perinatal complications.
Also I think rather a lot of women would point out that postpartum depression is in itself a complex mental health issue.
That being said, I actually agree with your main point that it's misleading to lump gender dysphoria together with sexuality as it's an altogether different thing.
I agree. On the one hand, LGBQA. On the other, TI.
And both can have a + added if needed, in case Ihave omitted anyone.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
Hmm.
I would be interested to see how many have died during transition surgery vs the number of women who have died from perinatal complications.
Also I think rather a lot of women would point out that postpartum depression is in itself a complex mental health issue.
That being said, I actually agree with your main point that it's misleading to lump gender dysphoria together with sexuality as it's an altogether different thing.
Sure, but the evidence we have suggests that the conversion therapy practices are more or less identical for both sexuality and gender identity....
(and the conversion practices we're talking about are horrific - most often being physically and/or sexually assaulted; talking therapies based on threats, degradation, or shame; being made homeless; being ostracized by community or faith groups)
Re Gaza, and it awfulness, and looking ahead. Israel has no plans to make friends with anyone by its policies, and does intend to render Gaza uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
There must be, I think, more than blind rage going on. There is a longer term policy. This, I wonder, may be to ensure that someone (who?) has no choice but to move the population of Gaza elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
The current Israeli government has made clear, publicly, that they want a one state solution, and that state is Israel. That only works with the further expulsion of Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing.
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
My Great Aunt died suffering from dementia for many years.
My Exponential Moving Average of Biden/Trump polls stands at 44.4/45.1 I think this Siena Poll is an outlier.
The election rests entirely on the swing votes in about 6 states. Trump is ahead in them. The other figures matter little as their results are already in the bag.
So, here's my forecast for the six:
AZ - Trump gain NV - Trump gain GA - Biden hold MI - Trump gain WI - Biden hold PA - Biden hold
Of these, the two I am least sure about are Georgia and Michigan.
I'd swop GA and WI. They both have 16 electoral votes. My total based on an evaluation of each state and latest polls is 273 Biden, 265 Trump.
I presume you mean swap GA and MI. MI only has 15 electoral votes this time round.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
However this is all a bit pedantic. I would simply ask people to compare how they would react if they learned a close relative was going to have IVF treatment to if a close relative wanted full gender reassignment surgery.
I would support both of them, in fact in the latter case I have.
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
My Great Aunt died suffering from dementia for many years.
What I said stands.
You are accusing Biden of being mentally difficient which clearly is not the same as the gradual process into dementia and is unkind to suggest it is and to compare him with Trump
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
My Great Aunt died suffering from dementia for many years.
What I said stands.
You are accusing Biden of being mentally difficient which clearly is not the same as the gradual process into dementia and is unkind to suggest it is and to compare him with Trump
He is mentally deficient and so is Trump. End of story.
I would still have Biden 1 million times over Trump.
Re Gaza, and it awfulness, and looking ahead. Israel has no plans to make friends with anyone by its policies, and does intend to render Gaza uninhabitable for the foreseeable future.
There must be, I think, more than blind rage going on. There is a longer term policy. This, I wonder, may be to ensure that someone (who?) has no choice but to move the population of Gaza elsewhere.
Any thoughts?
The current Israeli government has made clear, publicly, that they want a one state solution, and that state is Israel. That only works with the further expulsion of Palestinians, i.e. ethnic cleansing.
That, of course, is the problem with the one state solution - the extreme anti-Zionists want their own variant, Israel's current shitty government clearly want a completely different one, and lots of well-meaning middle class people in the UK and elsewhere think that a one state solution equates to some sort of dreamworld where everyone holds hands and everything turns out for the best.
None of these are compatible.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world are still wedded to the two state model but no-one is prepared to actually do anything to bring it about. The Trump plan probably came closest to bearing fruit since the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 - but the current war has pushed things back to square one.
There is perhaps still a trade-off to be had with with land vs money... but where is the land to come from? and where is the money?
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
My Great Aunt died suffering from dementia for many years.
What I said stands.
You are accusing Biden of being mentally difficient which clearly is not the same as the gradual process into dementia and is unkind to suggest it is and to compare him with Trump
He is mentally deficient and so is Trump. End of story.
I would still have Biden 1 million times over Trump.
There is no comparison between Biden struggle with memory and Trump no matter how you frame it
Wildly off topic, but what is the deal with double cream now?
As a commodity product, has it been cheapened off? Used to be billed in the usually superfluous explanatory bit as for whipping, pouring and sauces or some such, now only being billed for sauces.
Used to give the best consistency for whipping, nice aeration compared with when you started with extra thick or actual whipping cream, but increasingly it seems to be falling to whip properly. Can't think of any external or local reason for this other than the product itself has been cheapened off, and the change of wording is suspicious.
Dare I even wonder whether this could be some kind of Brexit bonus rather than some more simple cost reduction?
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
I would just say there is something quite different about dementia which is not a mental deficiency but a product of aging and very upsetting to the family and friends of loved ones
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
My Great Aunt died suffering from dementia for many years.
What I said stands.
You are accusing Biden of being mentally difficient which clearly is not the same as the gradual process into dementia and is unkind to suggest it is and to compare him with Trump
He is mentally deficient and so is Trump. End of story.
I would still have Biden 1 million times over Trump.
There is no comparison between Biden struggle with memory and Trump no matter how you frame it
They are as mentally deficient as each other. As I said, I would still have Biden 1 million times over Trump.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
Is it pensioners or Daily Express writers who want income tax to be cut?
Don't most Daily Express writers also write for the Mirror nowadays? I am not sure they have hugely political opinions, just writing what sells.
Do they? I know they are in the same ownership so it is possible but I'd not heard.
Yeah they share articles and resources, I am not sure if they share all journalists or only some. The former is what my friend who used to work at Reach said (now works at the I)
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
The 3G switch off has been completed by EE and Vodafone with Three to come later this year and O2 to follow next year.
So far EE seems to have had some success but sadly Vodafone's switch off has left me on EDGE in a lot of cases which is useless for data. I hope this can be resolved by re-farming/network optimisation but at the moment has been poor.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
The obvious problem is these things should be up to the individual and not up to others. We do not allow people to change other people's religion by force or therapy and the same rules apply. I am not the biggest fan of trans people but I don't want power over people to change them into something I prefer- I'm pretty sure there's a Twilight Zone episode about that.
If the NHS mutates into something that aims to change people into something they don't want and against their expressed consent, then it violates the basic tenets of medicine. PB often discusses this matter, but we ignore what it is turning us into: people who spend time discussing other people's lives and enforcing outcomes upon them as if we were gods.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
Apart from swearing language, I have consistently opposed the triple lock and written several times that is unaffordable and will ensure pension age rapidly rises to 70 +
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
Apart from swearing language, I have consistently opposed the triple lock and written several times that is in affordable and will ensure pension age rapidly rises to 70 +
It needs to end
It's a dumb as fuck policy, I am glad we agree. What a pointlessly long discussion this has been.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
Apart from swearing language, I have consistently opposed the triple lock and written several times that is unaffordable and will ensure pension age rapidly rises to 70 +
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
The Disney miniseries Shogun is very well done indeed. Annoyingly they’re only dropping an episode per week.
So in other words, what TV has been doing forever.
I wonder if this a gradual reversion to the good old days? Much as I like a good binge, there is something to be said for having to wait for the next episode.
The Disney miniseries Shogun is very well done indeed. Annoyingly they’re only dropping an episode per week.
So in other words, what TV has been doing forever.
I wonder if this a gradual reversion to the good old days? Much as I like a good binge, there is something to be said for having to wait for the next episode.
It's one of the worst things by far that Netflix introduced, where we can't wait for the next episode anyone. I'd much rather revert back.
(That was a serious post. Not a joke, as I know some may struggle to understand what a joke is.)
Probably the swearing, as the newest PB moderator has decided what can and can't be said.
My free speech IS BEING TAKEN AWAY
Grow up. You are being needlessly boorish. No-one is moderating you.
It was a joke. I am sorry you didn't get it.
(I was taking off that user who likes to capitalise things particularly about ALIENS or AI)
You know what I was referring too. For some reason you have taken an extreme dislike to another member of the forum. That’s fine, we don’t all have to like each other, but you can try to debate politely. Makes the arguments stronger, generally.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
Apart from swearing language, I have consistently opposed the triple lock and written several times that is in affordable and will ensure pension age rapidly rises to 70 +
It needs to end
It's a dumb as fuck policy, I am glad we agree. What a pointlessly long discussion this has been.
It is not a pointless conversation when you accept the conservative policy of the triple lock benefits the grey vote but Starmer is not going to change it meaning he to has succumbed to the same grey vote
Probably the swearing, as the newest PB moderator has decided what can and can't be said.
My free speech IS BEING TAKEN AWAY
Grow up. You are being needlessly boorish. No-one is moderating you.
It was a joke. I am sorry you didn't get it.
(I was taking off that user who likes to capitalise things particularly about ALIENS or AI)
You know what I was referring too. For some reason you have taken an extreme dislike to another member of the forum. That’s fine, we don’t all have to like each other, but you can try to debate politely. Makes the arguments stronger, generally.
No I know what I was saying because oddly enough I wrote the post.
t is not a pointless conversation when you accept the conservative policy of the triple lock benefits the grey vote but Starmer is not going to change it meaning he to has succumbed to the same grey vote
Starmer is an idiot for accepting it. Succumbing to the grey vote, is incredibly dumb, especially for him.
It's the thing that gives me the most cause for concern about what he would do in government. Forget these people.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have no contact with them and am not a member of the conservative party, but you maintain you are in Starmers inner circle
I have never said I am in Starmer's inner circle. I said I have friends who know him personally and who I suppose you might say are in his circle but they are just friends he's had over time.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
Apart from swearing language, I have consistently opposed the triple lock and written several times that is unaffordable and will ensure pension age rapidly rises to 70 +
t is not a pointless conversation when you accept the conservative policy of the triple lock benefits the grey vote but Starmer is not going to change it meaning he to has succumbed to the same grey vote
Starmer is an idiot for accepting it. Succumbing to the grey vote, is incredibly dumb, especially for him.
It's the thing that gives me the most cause for concern about what he would do in government. Forget these people.
Considering the current Tory VI is about 20%, you have to suspect he has lost rather a lot of the grey vote already…
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
The elderly being favoured in general is what gets my back up but unfortunately the triple lock is one of those things that comes up a lot so that is the thing I probably talk about WRT to these people the most.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
I fully understand that there are issues around the number of qualifying years needed - but with the pension age now at 68, the requirement to have 30 qualifying years is going to be achievable for almost everyone in the future.
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have to disagree.
New Towns is his dumbest policy.
Why is that? The level of the housing crisis requires building multiple cities worth of properties
If you build a big enough area of housing, it will need services, untiles, transport. What does that sound like? A town.
Maybe it would be better to double the size of all the villages in the Cotswolds (or similar) - but the political resistance to things like that would be far more intense.
t is not a pointless conversation when you accept the conservative policy of the triple lock benefits the grey vote but Starmer is not going to change it meaning he to has succumbed to the same grey vote
Starmer is an idiot for accepting it. Succumbing to the grey vote, is incredibly dumb, especially for him.
It's the thing that gives me the most cause for concern about what he would do in government. Forget these people.
Considering the current Tory VI is about 20%, you have to suspect he has lost rather a lot of the grey vote already…
Sunak removing this silly policy would actually gain him a bit of respect from me, I get politically why he doesn't. But Starmer literally has all the space to do it.
Same with things like planning reform, there is nobody loud in his party or voting coalition opposing making significant changes to stop things being pointlessly blocked, to get houses built etc. But silence from him, only vague platitudes. It would be a massive boost that he would have the power to do.
If I was to say this makes me nervous about him, that would be an understatement.
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have to disagree.
New Towns is his dumbest policy.
Why is that? The level of the housing crisis requires building multiple cities worth of properties
If you build a big enough area of housing, it will need services, untiles, transport. What does that sound like? A town.
Maybe it would be better to double the size of all the villages in the Cotswolds (or similar) - but the political resistance to things like that would be far more intense.
It would be better to leave the countryside alone and not import the thick end of a million people every year.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
I fully understand that there are issues around the number of qualifying years needed - but with the pension age now at 68, the requirement to have 30 qualifying years is going to be achievable for almost everyone in the future.
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
Absolutely and my own pension benefitted from staying in serps and saving into a private pension
My wife and I are extremely fortunate and count our blessings every day, but we experienced difficult times including paying a mortgage of just £32 per month , but with hard work and living within our means we achieved a comfortably retirement and provided our 3 children (now 57, 53 and 49) a happy childhood with lots of memories they still refer to today and tell to their own children
Don’t give a toss what the grey vote do or want. They’ve had things handed to them forever, forget them
Have you spoken to Starmer about his manifesto commitment to continue the triple lock for his full term in office ?
It's the dumbest policy he has by a country mile. I would dump it immediately.
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
I have to disagree.
New Towns is his dumbest policy.
Why is that? The level of the housing crisis requires building multiple cities worth of properties
If you build a big enough area of housing, it will need services, untiles, transport. What does that sound like? A town.
Maybe it would be better to double the size of all the villages in the Cotswolds (or similar) - but the political resistance to things like that would be far more intense.
It would be better to leave the countryside alone and not import the thick end of a million people every year.
We are 8 million properties short, right now. Who are you going to expel?
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
Indeed, talking to retired people it is interesting. Many have no pension at all beyond the state pension. My neighbours grandparent considers herself to be affluent on the basis of a £400 a month civil service pension on top of the state pension. That is still only about £1400 a month and she has to cover the bills, overheads and maintainence on a semi detached house.
I am listening to Fiona Hill's autobiography on Spotify premium. Her father was a hospital porter in the 1970's/1980's who earned the equivalent of £17,000 per year (uprated with inflation).
The "entitled" pensioners, ie those with defined benefit pensions and significant assets and who think they deserve more and more, are actually quite a small proportion of the total.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
The elderly being favoured in general is what gets my back up but unfortunately the triple lock is one of those things that comes up a lot so that is the thing I probably talk about WRT to these people the most.
But given that it's a relatively small amount of money, it comes across as mirdirected spite.
What really screwed up the intergenerational economic bargain was mass immigration. That is what left a generation of young people facing massively increased competition for housing, pricing them out of many areas that they would otherwise have been able to afford, and in the process bidding up the value of older people's assets.
It would be better to leave the countryside alone and not import the thick end of a million people every year.
I would happily build wherever homes, infrastructure is needed. It's crazy that rural communities are so badly served because people reject things for silly reasons like "visual pollution".
The principal beneficiaries of the pension triple lock are not current pensioners but future pensioners because (a) it guarantees the state pension will be worth more in real terms than it is now and (b) they will, on average, have more years in which to enjoy it. If the current generation of workers manage to destroy the triple lock they will lose far more in the long term than the current generation of pensioners.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
Your occasional reminder that in 1989, when I worked for Mo Mowlam, I was instructed to help pack away George Galloway’s office stuff. In his filing cabinets I found only a tin of hairspray and a pair of clogs.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
Worth noting that as of today the Government still hasn't even introduced the Bill to bring in a Football Regulator.
They said in Autumn 2021 after the Crouch review that they would do so.
Since then endless talk and endless statements but still no Bill actually introduced.
No sign of the government's conversion therapy bill either. Promised in October 2021, the draft bill was due last summer. Then before the end of the last parliamentary session. Then in time for the king's speech. Then, most recently, 'in the new year', but still... nothing:
I would certainly like to see an LGB conversion therapy ban for children. Adults is a bit more complicated.
Why not include T for transgender? Because it is quite different. LGB refers to sexuality. There is no evidence for being able to convert someone to a different sexual preference even if you wanted to anyway. Trans refers to one's gender identity. If people can be persuaded to accept their birth sex without having to resort to complicated surgery and countless drugs, what's the problem?
Playing devil's advocate: If people can be persuaded to accept childlessness, why all the need for IVF, what's the problem?
The effects of IVF on the human body are minimal.
I count pregnancy as a pretty major effect!
Yes well if you include that part.
If you don't it's a bit of a pointless procedure.
The point is that it is a perfectly natural biological event with relatively few negative health consequences nowadays. Transitioning is rather different.
Furthermore trans people often have complex mental health issues. Simply lumping it together with LGB (which is just a reference to one's sexual preferences) isn't actually helpful to anyone.
Alicia Kearns emotive guff in the house in response to a very reasonable Scottish MP shows how far this has all descended into hokum.
Hmm.
I would be interested to see how many have died during transition surgery vs the number of women who have died from perinatal complications.
Also I think rather a lot of women would point out that postpartum depression is in itself a complex mental health issue.
That being said, I actually agree with your main point that it's misleading to lump gender dysphoria together with sexuality as it's an altogether different thing.
Sure, but the evidence we have suggests that the conversion therapy practices are more or less identical for both sexuality and gender identity....
(and the conversion practices we're talking about are horrific - most often being physically and/or sexually assaulted; talking therapies based on threats, degradation, or shame; being made homeless; being ostracized by community or faith groups)
Assault etc is illegal already.
A professional therapist talking to someone should not be.
The problem in introducing a new law to target the former, which is already illegal, is if it targets the latter instead. Unintended consequences.
We need to prioritise enforcing existing laws before introducing new ones which should be a last resort to close gaps in the law, not reiterate existing laws that aren't being enforced.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
I fully understand that there are issues around the number of qualifying years needed - but with the pension age now at 68, the requirement to have 30 qualifying years is going to be achievable for almost everyone in the future.
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
Pension age for state is 66 at moment. Rising to 67 and then to 68.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
What a lovely story about your Granny - you must be very proud of her
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
I fully understand that there are issues around the number of qualifying years needed - but with the pension age now at 68, the requirement to have 30 qualifying years is going to be achievable for almost everyone in the future.
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
Absolutely and my own pension benefitted from staying in serps and saving into a private pension
My wife and I are extremely fortunate and count our blessings every day, but we experienced difficult times including paying a mortgage of just £32 per month , but with hard work and living within our means we achieved a comfortably retirement and provided our 3 children (now 57, 53 and 49) a happy childhood with lots of memories they still refer to today and tell to their own children
Nonsense. I think you'll find that everyone over 65 is on a pension of £100k+ a year. If not more. And are entirely selfish with no regard to the young.
I've read it in several Journals of Record, so I assume it's true.
The triple lock and pensions are an important component of welfare spending but still dwarfed by the burden our ageing population places on healthcare. That’s the biggest challenge: in every country in the West (including the US where insurance premiums will just keep rising) and other poorer but ageing countries.
On pensions I would do a deal. The triple lock has become an albatross around the neck and very hard to eliminate. So remove it, replaced by a single lock based on average earnings, but with the incentive of a one-off step change in the pension in year one.
The principal beneficiaries of the pension triple lock are not current pensioners but future pensioners because (a) it guarantees the state pension will be worth more in real terms than it is now and (b) they will, on average, have more years in which to enjoy it. If the current generation of workers manage to destroy the triple lock they will lose far more in the long term than the current generation of pensioners.
Yes. You'd create a generation that was truly fucked every way. Tuition fee debt. Perpetual renting. Rubbish defined contribution private pensions. State pension devalued to a pittance.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
When people say "we lived within our means" I can always tell what they are going to say next, something about eating fewer avocados or getting Pret less is what naturally follows as advice on how to live.
The reality is that even if you live within your means today you will not be able to afford to have what our grandparents had.
I loved and miss my grandmother every day of my life and I am very sorry she isn't around anymore but she had this view and it was something I could never shake off as being incredibly unaware and frankly I felt a bit disrespected and condescended by it. All younger people want is the same chance others have. They are not getting it.
And the fix for that isn't to cut income tax, it's to increase tax allowances so they start at somewhere above £12,570...
It is legitimately insane that we are still thinking about any of these people when they've been handed so much and the economy is in such a state. Why don't we start thinking about people that actually work for a living having their taxes be the highest in recorded history?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
I would just say that my wife's pension is just £5,071 pa and as such I am able to claim a further £1,260 unused tax allowance to add to my £12, 570 allowance
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
I fully understand that there are issues around the number of qualifying years needed - but with the pension age now at 68, the requirement to have 30 qualifying years is going to be achievable for almost everyone in the future.
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
Pension age for state is 66 at moment. Rising to 67 and then to 68.
It is 35 years for full state pension.
I thought it went up to 68 about 20 years ago?
Bloody hell, no, only from 2044. (Excuse me while I go seethe...)
But the point is that that still gives you 12 years to take out for childcare - enough to have 6 kids. Who does that these days?
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
When people say "we lived within our means" I can always tell what they are going to say next, something about eating fewer avocados or getting Pret less is what naturally follows as advice on how to live.
The reality is that even if you live within your means today you will not be able to afford to have what our grandparents had.
I loved and miss my grandmother every day of my life and I am very sorry she isn't around anymore but she had this view and it was something I could never shake off as being incredibly unaware and frankly I felt a bit disrespected and condescended by it. All younger people want is the same chance others have. They are not getting it.
That's not all they want though. They also want to feel morally superior and this leads them to support policies that are against their economic interests.
The principal beneficiaries of the pension triple lock are not current pensioners but future pensioners because (a) it guarantees the state pension will be worth more in real terms than it is now and (b) they will, on average, have more years in which to enjoy it. If the current generation of workers manage to destroy the triple lock they will lose far more in the long term than the current generation of pensioners.
Nonsense because the moment the boomers pass away and no longer dominate electoral politics, the commitment to pensions will be reversed.
My generation is already ineligible for final salary etc pensions but has to pay the cost of paying out for those who earned them but never actually saved for them so we need to pay for it but not get it ourselves.
The same will happen with the triple lock etc. Nobody realistically thinks it will still be around in decades time.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
When people say "we lived within our means" I can always tell what they are going to say next, something about eating fewer avocados or getting Pret less is what naturally follows as advice on how to live.
The reality is that even if you live within your means today you will not be able to afford to have what our grandparents had.
I loved and miss my grandmother every day of my life and I am very sorry she isn't around anymore but she had this view and it was something I could never shake off as being incredibly unaware and frankly I felt a bit disrespected and condescended by it. All younger people want is the same chance others have. They are not getting it.
That's not all they want though. They also want to feel morally superior and this leads them to support policies that are against their economic interests.
Not me, I just want us to have the same opportunities our grandparents had. Like being able to afford a house at a reasonable price, having an NHS that worked properly, having trains that weren't unaffordable for a rubbish service etc.
I am happy to debate the nuances but I completely reject the idea that I want to feel morally superior. When this injustice is solved (if ever, I won't hold my breath) I will gladly go away.
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
When people say "we lived within our means" I can always tell what they are going to say next, something about eating fewer avocados or getting Pret less is what naturally follows as advice on how to live.
The reality is that even if you live within your means today you will not be able to afford to have what our grandparents had.
I loved and miss my grandmother every day of my life and I am very sorry she isn't around anymore but she had this view and it was something I could never shake off as being incredibly unaware and frankly I felt a bit disrespected and condescended by it. All younger people want is the same chance others have. They are not getting it.
You are mistaking the generations
We did not live in today's must have consumer world and we made do not least mending and repairing rather than throwing away for the latest gizmo
I would not presume to tell todays generation how to live but can recount our own 60 plus years of wedded experience
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
Because young people and poor people either vote less or vote for losing parties. If they all voted the Tories could never do this again.
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
I don't understand why you make the state pension the focus of your ire. It's not enough for anybody to live the life of Riley on.
For a completely arbitrary example, take the case of my granny.
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
I think it is better to focus on trying to sort out the student loans system, rather than complaining about pensioners. I think the problem is really with affluent pensioners and the low tax rates they benefit from, but it confusingly gets directed at all pensioners.
The situation is not hopeless for the young. Wages are good and in large parts of the country housing is not prohibitively expensive.
Comments
But - I don't think the first is very likely. The Republicans are increasingly playing to their base and he's a divisive candidate even among them.
It's hardly scientific but it helps me sleep at night.
Oh, sorry, that's the UVF.
https://x.com/AdamBienkov/status/1763850266988696036
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1764024825255710925
Both candidates are clearly as mentally deficient as each other.
And both can have a + added if needed, in case Ihave omitted anyone.
(and the conversion practices we're talking about are horrific - most often being physically and/or sexually assaulted; talking therapies based on threats, degradation, or shame; being made homeless; being ostracized by community or faith groups)
Biden is a decent man but is failing as many of us over 80s recognise often in our own loved ones
On the other hand Trump is just ghastly and a real threat to democracy
IVF does have several side effects other than pregnancy, and the resulting pregnancies have higher risks too.
What I said stands.
https://x.com/sgfmann/status/1764040950156853598?s=20
George Mann
@sgfmann
·
18m
Sunday Express: Cut tax or lose grey vote #TomorrowsPapersToday
https://twitter.com/sgfmann
(For the record: I don't think this should be banned -- or required -- but I see no reason not to encourage it.)
I would still have Biden 1 million times over Trump.
None of these are compatible.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world are still wedded to the two state model but no-one is prepared to actually do anything to bring it about. The Trump plan probably came closest to bearing fruit since the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000 - but the current war has pushed things back to square one.
There is perhaps still a trade-off to be had with with land vs money... but where is the land to come from? and where is the money?
As a commodity product, has it been cheapened off? Used to be billed in the usually superfluous explanatory bit as for whipping, pouring and sauces or some such, now only being billed for sauces.
Used to give the best consistency for whipping, nice aeration compared with when you started with extra thick or actual whipping cream, but increasingly it seems to be falling to whip properly. Can't think of any external or local reason for this other than the product itself has been cheapened off, and the change of wording is suspicious.
Dare I even wonder whether this could be some kind of Brexit bonus rather than some more simple cost reduction?
End of story
/thread
Have you spoken to your best friend Rishi Sunak? The current PM? The one with the 80 seat majority? Or are you a Johnson fan today? Or Truss again?
But the Tories hate working people, actively despise them. I really hope they do lose so they can learn to not take us for granted again.
If you are asking me if I have told them that the policy is dumb as fuck then sure but we don't tend to talk about politics unless I specifically bring it up, we're normally at the pub to escape this kind of stuff.
But yes the policy is dumb as fuck, what say you?
The 3G switch off has been completed by EE and Vodafone with Three to come later this year and O2 to follow next year.
So far EE seems to have had some success but sadly Vodafone's switch off has left me on EDGE in a lot of cases which is useless for data. I hope this can be resolved by re-farming/network optimisation but at the moment has been poor.
Universal credit: £4,425. Marginal tax rate: 55%
I had no idea the difference between the two was so great. How can that possibly be justified?
If the NHS mutates into something that aims to change people into something they don't want and against their expressed consent, then it violates the basic tenets of medicine. PB often discusses this matter, but we ignore what it is turning us into: people who spend time discussing other people's lives and enforcing outcomes upon them as if we were gods.
It needs to end
I really hope in opposition the Tories actually think about what they are for. But I am sceptical if they think they can bribe the elderly again.
I really am sick of it.
Is an interesting take on state pensions. Why is £800 per month so ridculous?
My free speech IS BEING TAKEN AWAY
Annoyingly they’re only dropping an episode per week.
(I was taking off that user who likes to capitalise things particularly about ALIENS or AI)
My wife did not work whilst bringing up our children and only part time later so she did not qualify for the full pension
I would just add to those who think we had an easy life it was far from easy and took all her skills to budget on our income
(That was a serious post. Not a joke, as I know some may struggle to understand what a joke is.)
New Towns is his dumbest policy.
1. Triple lock
2. New towns
What else?
AI
ALIENS
THE WORLD IS FALLING TO HELL IN A HANDCART
You know, what that user posts every day.
It was a joke, relax.
It's the thing that gives me the most cause for concern about what he would do in government. Forget these people.
He’ll still be getting my vote though.
...
2. Triple lock
4. New towns
5. Serving in the cabinet of an anti-Semite
No-one (I hope!) begrudges you a decent retirement. The rest of us just want to have an opportunity to have the same for ourselves - after all, our GDP figures say we should be able to afford it!
If you build a big enough area of housing, it will need services, untiles, transport. What does that sound like? A town.
Maybe it would be better to double the size of all the villages in the Cotswolds (or similar) - but the political resistance to things like that would be far more intense.
Same with things like planning reform, there is nobody loud in his party or voting coalition opposing making significant changes to stop things being pointlessly blocked, to get houses built etc. But silence from him, only vague platitudes. It would be a massive boost that he would have the power to do.
If I was to say this makes me nervous about him, that would be an understatement.
My wife and I are extremely fortunate and count our blessings every day, but we experienced difficult times including paying a mortgage of just £32 per month , but with hard work and living within our means we achieved a comfortably retirement and provided our 3 children (now 57, 53 and 49) a happy childhood with lots of memories they still refer to today and tell to their own children
I am listening to Fiona Hill's autobiography on Spotify premium. Her father was a hospital porter in the 1970's/1980's who earned the equivalent of £17,000 per year (uprated with inflation).
The "entitled" pensioners, ie those with defined benefit pensions and significant assets and who think they deserve more and more, are actually quite a small proportion of the total.
Call a General Election and let’s have it.
To the culture warriors, the wokies, the nutters and the players I say simply this:
Bring it on.
What really screwed up the intergenerational economic bargain was mass immigration. That is what left a generation of young people facing massively increased competition for housing, pricing them out of many areas that they would otherwise have been able to afford, and in the process bidding up the value of older people's assets.
Michael Hann
@MichaelAHann
Your occasional reminder that in 1989, when I worked for Mo Mowlam, I was instructed to help pack away George Galloway’s office stuff. In his filing cabinets I found only a tin of hairspray and a pair of clogs.
https://twitter.com/MichaelAHann/status/1763862033412276476
“It had no steering wheel and would be controlled using Apple's virtual assistant, Siri.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/28/technology/behind-the-apple-car-dead.html
She's recently turned 90. Still fairly spritely for her age, though she has slowed down a bit in the past couple of years. Left school at 15 rather than the usual 14 because she was considered brainy. Worked in what was then considered a high-status job in a chemist's shop. Left work in her early 20s to get married, and had three kids. Her husband worked as a joiner in the shipyard but was injured when the youngest of the kids was still a baby, and passed away a few years later. She found work as a cleaner - the only job available to her given the stigma of being a single parent - at a local bank branch, and then later at a primary school. Did O Levels at night school, then an access course, foundation course, and a degree through the OU. Retired at 60(!). Has lived for almost 60 years in the same 3 bedroom end terrace council house, with a double garden.
Talk to her now, and she'll tell you that she's had "a good wee life" in retirement. She's worked hard all her life, and absolutely no-one begrudges her what she has today.
But what would it take for a 30 year old today to be able to provide for anything approaching that "good wee life" in their retirement?
Six figures? Maybe more, especially if they wanted to have kids? This is the problem: opportunities that used to exist are no longer there. All that the young are asking for is the chance to get on the ladder - nothing more.
A professional therapist talking to someone should not be.
The problem in introducing a new law to target the former, which is already illegal, is if it targets the latter instead. Unintended consequences.
We need to prioritise enforcing existing laws before introducing new ones which should be a last resort to close gaps in the law, not reiterate existing laws that aren't being enforced.
It is 35 years for full state pension.
I've read it in several Journals of Record, so I assume it's true.
On pensions I would do a deal. The triple lock has become an albatross around the neck and very hard to eliminate. So remove it, replaced by a single lock based on average earnings, but with the incentive of a one-off step change in the pension in year one.
As for healthcare…difficult. Very difficult.
The reality is that even if you live within your means today you will not be able to afford to have what our grandparents had.
I loved and miss my grandmother every day of my life and I am very sorry she isn't around anymore but she had this view and it was something I could never shake off as being incredibly unaware and frankly I felt a bit disrespected and condescended by it. All younger people want is the same chance others have. They are not getting it.
Bloody hell, no, only from 2044. (Excuse me while I go seethe...)
But the point is that that still gives you 12 years to take out for childcare - enough to have 6 kids. Who does that these days?
My generation is already ineligible for final salary etc pensions but has to pay the cost of paying out for those who earned them but never actually saved for them so we need to pay for it but not get it ourselves.
The same will happen with the triple lock etc. Nobody realistically thinks it will still be around in decades time.
I am happy to debate the nuances but I completely reject the idea that I want to feel morally superior. When this injustice is solved (if ever, I won't hold my breath) I will gladly go away.
We did not live in today's must have consumer world and we made do not least mending and repairing rather than throwing away for the latest gizmo
I would not presume to tell todays generation how to live but can recount our own 60 plus years of wedded experience
The situation is not hopeless for the young. Wages are good and in large parts of the country housing is not prohibitively expensive.