I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?
Align it to State pension age.
That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.
But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?
Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.
We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.
If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...
You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
Well yes. But there is a happy middle ground between a falling population due to no immigration and a population increasing at its fastest rate on record - despite a sub-2 and falling birth rate - due to massive immigration. Both extremes come with considerable problems, but we're so far away from being able to control immigration that the former isn't really a problem we have to consider.
I don’t think we’re “far away from being able to control immigration”. Immigration was high under the Conservatives because they chose for it to be high. Immigration under Labour is expected to drop from the last Tory figures.
Expected by whom? It would seem out of character for the Labour Party to bring down immigration.
Would it? Immigration since 2010 has been considerably higher than it was under the previous Labour administration.
But if you want, check back with me in 12-18 months time and let’s look at the figures.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
Well yes. But there is a happy middle ground between a falling population due to no immigration and a population increasing at its fastest rate on record - despite a sub-2 and falling birth rate - due to massive immigration. Both extremes come with considerable problems, but we're so far away from being able to control immigration that the former isn't really a problem we have to consider.
I don’t think we’re “far away from being able to control immigration”. Immigration was high under the Conservatives because they chose for it to be high. Immigration under Labour is expected to drop from the last Tory figures.
Expected by whom? It would seem out of character for the Labour Party to bring down immigration.
Would it? Immigration since 2010 has been considerably higher than it was under the previous Labour administration.
But if you want, check back with me in 12-18 months time and let’s look at the figures.
Yeah, fair enough. Let's dissect in a year or two.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
I don't understand this at all. Global trackers are very cheap nowadays and plenty of choice for tinkering to risk and geographic preferences. Just nudge private pension schemes into those, don't make it more complicated. Complicated is just a way of driving up costs here.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
Well yes. But there is a happy middle ground between a falling population due to no immigration and a population increasing at its fastest rate on record - despite a sub-2 and falling birth rate - due to massive immigration. Both extremes come with considerable problems, but we're so far away from being able to control immigration that the former isn't really a problem we have to consider.
I don’t think we’re “far away from being able to control immigration”. Immigration was high under the Conservatives because they chose for it to be high. Immigration under Labour is expected to drop from the last Tory figures.
Expected by whom? It would seem out of character for the Labour Party to bring down immigration.
We need a Betfair market, would be easy money betting on a decrease at the moment and plenty who simply can't see it happening to milk.
“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.
This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.
Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...
*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Possibly fewer ethnic minorities? More recent immigrants tend to have more children.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
I don't understand this at all. Global trackers are very cheap nowadays and plenty of choice for tinkering to risk and geographic preferences. Just nudge private pension schemes into those, don't make it more complicated. Complicated is just a way of driving up costs here.
Exactly. Advisers like their fees and they get paid whatever their performance too.
So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.
I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!
A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.
He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.
i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.
Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )
*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE
Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc. One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!
This is probably not the place for the discussion, but I was very struck by a radio discussion where both Jewish and Islamic priest/iman etc assert that to kill is morally wrong, yet we see (certainly for Islam() large strands of the religion(s) that seem to say it is acceptable.
Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.
“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.
This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.
Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...
*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”
Scrap free contraceptives and kill two PB birds with one stone.
Scrap Free contraceptives for over 60s?
My friend used to work in a clap clinic in the early 2000s and she was shocked by how many over 60s she had to deal with.
Viagra was a game changer, the over 60s thought that since the women hit menopause there was no need for contraception as they couldn’t get pregnant, they didn’t realise that they could get STIs.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
When do we get the verdict on who's being churcked out of the balloon next?
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
No. It was pleasant enough, and that's all, he became the one to back because they wanted him to be. We saw a similar thing happen in the US with Kamala Harris. She was the hapless useless VP to good old boy Joe, and soon as the 'sensibles' needed to switch horses, she became a tower of strength and joy without actually submitting herself to any kind of scrutiny.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Having kids to live under an SNP government is a tough call. Hard to see a viable future for them.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
The theoretical advantage is that by being collective, the scheme can invest in long-term assets rather than be bounded by the time-frame of the individual pensioner. (ie normally, you would invest in growth assets / equities for the first X years, and then as you approach retirement the fund switches to theoretically safer assets such as bonds). By being a collective scheme which has the same proportion of people at each stage of "pension journey" over time, they can keep long-term illiquid assets in the fund which might have a better return profile.
Personally I'm somewhat unconvinced... but that's the theory at least.
So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.
I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!
A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.
He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.
i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.
Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )
*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE
Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc. One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!
This is probably not the place for the discussion, but I was very struck by a radio discussion where both Jewish and Islamic priest/iman etc assert that to kill is morally wrong, yet we see (certainly for Islam() large strands of the religion(s) that seem to say it is acceptable.
Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.
Do you cast all of a religion’s proponents as evil because of the actions of some? You’d have to consider a large proportion of the world’s population to be evil.
Siena not having a great election. Alongside their best national poll for Harris, they have Trump +13% in Texas.
The latest New York Times/Siena College polls: National: Harris+3 - her best showing in a Times/Siena poll this cycle Texas: Trump+6 Florida: Trump+13 https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1843618979363131720
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
And the govt, as well as the industry are saying you "should" get better returns. Not you will, they cannot give financial advice, just you "should".
I will keep my money where it is. As far as I am concerned if Britain was worth investing in people would be doing it already. The fact it is not in the numbers required is something that should be addressed by making it more attractive to invest in not compelling pension funds to invest in "Britain"
This from the Govt announcement. The significant appetite being the advisers and fund managers who get their cut whatever the performance.
"Building on the significant appetite from industry for extending CDC provision, the Government is now seeking to broaden access further by allowing unconnected multiple employer schemes – making this pension model more accessible to a wider range of businesses and employees."
"This work builds on plans to review our pensions landscape as well as our new Pension Schemes Bill which could boost pension pots – with further consolidation and broader investment strategies to possibly deliver higher returns for pensioners."
Siena not having a great election. Alongside their best national poll for Harris, they have Trump +13% in Texas.
The latest New York Times/Siena College polls: National: Harris+3 - her best showing in a Times/Siena poll this cycle Texas: Trump+6 Florida: Trump+13 https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1843618979363131720
Still, I suppose they're not herding...
Are you sure ?
Trump is +6 in TX from this. Desantis romped home by 19.4 against Christ in the midterms so +13 for Florida looks potentially plausible.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
A falling population is what we need. Trouble is we also need it to be younger. Which is quite hard to achieve
We should have let Covid take out all the wrinklies and avoided any lockdown
Mrs. P did her degree as a mature student aged 30 and was termed a 'wrinklie' at that age by fellow students (even though she had no actual wrinkles). It's all relative.
I suspect you and most of us on here would be classed as 'wrinklies' by many.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
And the govt, as well as the industry are saying you "should" get better returns. Not you will, they cannot give financial advice, just you "should".
I will keep my money where it is. As far as I am concerned if Britain was worth investing in people would be doing it already. The fact it is not in the numbers required is something that should be addressed by making it more attractive to invest in not compelling pension funds to invest in "Britain"
This from the Govt announcement. The significant appetite being the advisers and fund managers who get their cut whatever the performance.
"Building on the significant appetite from industry for extending CDC provision, the Government is now seeking to broaden access further by allowing unconnected multiple employer schemes – making this pension model more accessible to a wider range of businesses and employees."
"This work builds on plans to review our pensions landscape as well as our new Pension Schemes Bill which could boost pension pots – with further consolidation and broader investment strategies to possibly deliver higher returns for pensioners."
To improve investment in British industry, they need to make investment in property less attractive.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Having kids to live under an SNP government is a tough call. Hard to see a viable future for them.
The deal is significantly better here than it is England, particularly if you're middle class. Childcare, uni tuition, prescriptions, benefits like SCP. Our economy is better than anywhere else in the UK other than the SE of England.
A big driver of it is simply that we have a smaller immigrant population. Despite our flat population, we also have a housing crisis with all the good jobs centred in a few urban centres, and women are increasingly highly educated and in good jobs.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
Snippet from the Atlantic in a piece about the phony populism of the right:
"Trump and those like him make a deal with the most resentful citizens in society: Keep us up in the penthouses, and we’ll harass your enemies on your behalf. We’ll punish the people you want punished. In the end, however, the joke is always on the voters."
I like that.
Why is this deal necessary? Without Trump in power, the rich will be evicted from their penthouses?
Possibly, if populism went a different route. So make sure it doesn't - set up other enemies (like immigrants) to blame and get angry with. It's such a cheap and exploitative form of politics. Every time it prevails the world gets a little darker.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Wales has an an older population profile so should see more deaths than England. Not sure about Scotland. Norn has the youngest population iirc so should see the highest birth rate. England has a slightly more immigrant heavy population so should have slightly higher birth rates for the same age profile as the other nations, but it's not quite enough to outweigh Norn's slightly younger population *I think !
That’s a massive disparity in Scotland however
45k births, 65k deaths
Almost one and a half times as many deaths as births
Births falling in Scotland for 60 years...
And its been remarkably consistent. 104k births in 1964
Deaths have been broadly level for last 50 years. 50 - 65k per year.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been to Scotlands main belt. Poor people, born in poor housing, who smoke, drink and have a poor diet without much exercise die earlier. Who'd a thought.
1960 and 1961 were vintage years, if I may say so.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
That would just become a piggy bank to be raided by any minister for their pet ‘infrastructure’ project, with little thought as to the returns it might make.
You’d need to have some very serious Trustees prepared to resign on a point of principle when arguing with government. If the scheme goes South, it takes *everyone’s* pension saving with it.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
The theoretical advantage is that by being collective, the scheme can invest in long-term assets rather than be bounded by the time-frame of the individual pensioner. (ie normally, you would invest in growth assets / equities for the first X years, and then as you approach retirement the fund switches to theoretically safer assets such as bonds). By being a collective scheme which has the same proportion of people at each stage of "pension journey" over time, they can keep long-term illiquid assets in the fund which might have a better return profile.
Personally I'm somewhat unconvinced... but that's the theory at least.
So are they going to equalise annual returns based on some market expectations?
If so that is going to be a nightmare as market expectations are not always correct. And if not, people can make those decisions individually more cheaply already, there is no advantage to it being collective.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
At the moment I can choose what my company DC pot invests in. Under a CDC I won't be able to.
We know some DB pensions suffered adversely after the Mini Budget due to their exposure to LDI's.
My old DB fund moved from 0% LDI in 2010 to 25% LDI's at the time of the mini budget.
No accountability for the investment choice and I had no input into it. A CDC would be no different.
However lots of well paid advisers, who are advocating these schemes, will benefit in large fees.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Wales has an an older population profile so should see more deaths than England. Not sure about Scotland. Norn has the youngest population iirc so should see the highest birth rate. England has a slightly more immigrant heavy population so should have slightly higher birth rates for the same age profile as the other nations, but it's not quite enough to outweigh Norn's slightly younger population *I think !
That’s a massive disparity in Scotland however
45k births, 65k deaths
Almost one and a half times as many deaths as births
Births falling in Scotland for 60 years...
And its been remarkably consistent. 104k births in 1964
Deaths have been broadly level for last 50 years. 50 - 65k per year.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been to Scotlands main belt. Poor people, born in poor housing, who smoke, drink and have a poor diet without much exercise die earlier. Who'd a thought.
None of the SNP's initiatives over the last 17 years have worked?
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
That would just become a piggy bank to be raided by any minister for their pet ‘infrastructure’ project, with little thought as to the returns it might make.
You’d need to have some very serious Trustees prepared to resign on a point of principle when arguing with government. If the scheme goes South, it takes *everyone’s* pension saving with it.
Isn't that the same as any public sector pension? There is nothing compelling a future government to pay those out.
“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.
This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.
Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...
*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
That, as Sherlock Holmes would say, was the curious incident.
Tugendhat (sadly - politically he's the best candidate) - hasn't got the right stuff at all, and the other two are in different ways capable of toxicity.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
He was the only one of the four who used a lecturn rather than wandering about the stage trying to look on fire and vibey.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
A falling population is what we need. Trouble is we also need it to be younger. Which is quite hard to achieve
We should have let Covid take out all the wrinklies and avoided any lockdown
Mrs. P did her degree as a mature student aged 30 and was termed a 'wrinklie' at that age by fellow students (even though she had no actual wrinkles). It's all relative.
I suspect you and most of us on here would be classed as 'wrinklies' by many.
So anyway my kids' school is running a trip for one of the years to a local mosque (they've been studying Islam in RE recently; it's a CofE school). The year in question is still in the free school meals age group, so the school is offering pack-ups, with sandwiches of cheese, tuna or ham.
I assume these will not be eaten on the mosque's premises, but still strikes me as a bit of an 'interesting' choice for the day trip!
A couple of years ago my son went on a school trip to Bhaktivedanta Manor. We had to provide a packed lunch, and it was made clear that this would be eaten on the bus.
He really enjoyed the trip; his first significant contact with Hinduism.
i think such trips should be encouraged, to all religions.
Yeah, my kid's been really engaged with this and last year when they studied Hinduism and did some things for Diwali. I'd not have gone for a CofE school particularly*, but I'm happy that this one is giving well rounded education and not pushing the Christianity bit excessively (I mean, if you do, how do you do it - Muslims believe this and they're wrong! )
*The two nearest ones we liked both happened to be CofE
Our local WEA organised a series of talks on Islam. Very informative, given by someone who'd fought in Bosnia etc. One of the elderly lady members was told by her husband not to attend!. She did, though!
This is probably not the place for the discussion, but I was very struck by a radio discussion where both Jewish and Islamic priest/iman etc assert that to kill is morally wrong, yet we see (certainly for Islam() large strands of the religion(s) that seem to say it is acceptable.
Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.
Do you cast all of a religion’s proponents as evil because of the actions of some? You’d have to consider a large proportion of the world’s population to be evil.
'Religion' is an abstract word, like 'atheism' or 'agnosticism' or 'secular' or 'Marxism'.
I don't blame any of these words for the evils of humans, whatever guise they adopt. And, BTW, there is no point in blaming God for anything unless there is a God.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Wales has an an older population profile so should see more deaths than England. Not sure about Scotland. Norn has the youngest population iirc so should see the highest birth rate. England has a slightly more immigrant heavy population so should have slightly higher birth rates for the same age profile as the other nations, but it's not quite enough to outweigh Norn's slightly younger population *I think !
That’s a massive disparity in Scotland however
45k births, 65k deaths
Almost one and a half times as many deaths as births
Births falling in Scotland for 60 years...
And its been remarkably consistent. 104k births in 1964
Deaths have been broadly level for last 50 years. 50 - 65k per year.
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has been to Scotlands main belt. Poor people, born in poor housing, who smoke, drink and have a poor diet without much exercise die earlier. Who'd a thought.
1960 and 1961 were vintage years, if I may say so.
The Eeyore gene prevalent in that cohort evidently.
“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.
This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.
Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...
*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”
Siena not having a great election. Alongside their best national poll for Harris, they have Trump +13% in Texas.
The latest New York Times/Siena College polls: National: Harris+3 - her best showing in a Times/Siena poll this cycle Texas: Trump+6 Florida: Trump+13 https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1843618979363131720
Still, I suppose they're not herding...
Are you sure ?
Trump is +6 in TX from this. Desantis romped home by 19.4 against Christ in the midterms so +13 for Florida looks potentially plausible.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
No. It was pleasant enough, and that's all, he became the one to back because they wanted him to be. We saw a similar thing happen in the US with Kamala Harris. She was the hapless useless VP to good old boy Joe, and soon as the 'sensibles' needed to switch horses, she became a tower of strength and joy without actually submitting herself to any kind of scrutiny.
It was people on the right who were forever pushing the 'useless Kamala' trope.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Scotland a) has been struggling with birth rates for some time, and b) has been struggling with earlier deaths for some time (so the tipping point into natural shrinkage comes earlier).
ISTR a few years ago England's birth rate was being propped up by immigrants with more children, though I don't know if this is still true.
So without immigration the country's population would be falling/
Has anyone told Farage?
Not mentioned here much is that Scotland has much lower levels of immigration than England.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
“All credit to Starmer, finally an appointment that makes sense - if the goal is *give away British territory because your human rights lawyer mates say 'there's no alternative'*, then makes sense to hire the expert on surrendering to the IRA.
This came to my desk in No10. I said: tell the FO and Cabinet Office lawyers to fuck off, no way, no discussion.
Boris in 2021 like on everything backtracked and started this surrender. Cleverley took dictation like the perfect NPC-minister...
*The system is working as intended* - and the logical thing for the system to do is put Powell in as NSA, institutionalise *surrender to international lawyers* & bring clarity across the deep state.”
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
No. It was pleasant enough, and that's all, he became the one to back because they wanted him to be. We saw a similar thing happen in the US with Kamala Harris. She was the hapless useless VP to good old boy Joe, and soon as the 'sensibles' needed to switch horses, she became a tower of strength and joy without actually submitting herself to any kind of scrutiny.
It was people on the right who were forever pushing the 'useless Kamala' trope.
The polling had her as the most unpopular VP on record. Her approval in March this year was 36%
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.
It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..
It has to be Euston, sadly.
As I've said passim, a sane plan would have been for Crossrail to have been planned and designed to cope with HS2 sets; allowing (say) one service an hour to interconnect at Old Oak Common, go through central London on Crossrail, then join HS1 at Stratford to go on to Europe, if required, or Kent. It's far too late now, but that would have been true transport planning at its best.
It's really annoying when you see how close HS1 and Crossrail are at Stratford, and HS2 and Crossrail will be at OOC. It is a massively wasted opportunity.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.
It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..
It has to be Euston, sadly.
As I've said passim, a sane plan would have been for Crossrail to have been planned and designed to cope with HS2 sets; allowing (say) one service an hour to interconnect at Old Oak Common, go through central London on Crossrail, then join HS1 at Stratford to go on to Europe, if required, or Kent. It's far too late now, but that would have been true transport planning at its best.
It's really annoying when you see how close HS1 and Crossrail are at Stratford, and HS2 and Crossrail will be at OOC. It is a massively wasted opportunity.
Given the work required and the complexity of Crossrail's signaling it would have added a few more billion to the cost.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
Having kids to live under an SNP government is a tough call. Hard to see a viable future for them.
It is instead, perhaps a sign that many people born in England move to Scotland or Wales and stay there for the rest of their lives?
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
Love to know where he proposes to put the platforms at Kings Cross St Pancras.
It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..
It has to be Euston, sadly.
As I've said passim, a sane plan would have been for Crossrail to have been planned and designed to cope with HS2 sets; allowing (say) one service an hour to interconnect at Old Oak Common, go through central London on Crossrail, then join HS1 at Stratford to go on to Europe, if required, or Kent. It's far too late now, but that would have been true transport planning at its best.
It's really annoying when you see how close HS1 and Crossrail are at Stratford, and HS2 and Crossrail will be at OOC. It is a massively wasted opportunity.
The problem with that is that Crossrail is a stopping service - the high speed train would have either had to run slowly through Central London, or the frequency of crossrail would have to be severely compromised. And underground stations with 400m platforms for HS2 trains are VERY expensive.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I for one welcome our new lurkers from the Guardian-reading, tofu-eating wokerati!
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
------------
NB: PB gets a mention downstream!
I watched Cleverly's speech and didn't notice anything special about it.
No. It was pleasant enough, and that's all, he became the one to back because they wanted him to be. We saw a similar thing happen in the US with Kamala Harris. She was the hapless useless VP to good old boy Joe, and soon as the 'sensibles' needed to switch horses, she became a tower of strength and joy without actually submitting herself to any kind of scrutiny.
It was people on the right who were forever pushing the 'useless Kamala' trope.
The polling had her as the most unpopular VP on record. Her approval in March this year was 36%
I'm not saying she was popular as VP. She wasn't. I'm just pointing out that it wasn't the so-called Sensibles who were going around slagging her off as useless. It was a different crew entirely.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.
Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.
“Donald J. Trump suggested in a radio interview on Monday that he had visited war-torn Gaza in the past, a place there is no record of him visiting. When asked to clarify, a campaign aide said that Gaza is “in Israel” and that Mr. Trump has visited Israel.”
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Euston was always the wrong terminus for HS2. It is crowded already and doesn’t have the same connections, including Eurostar, as Kings Cross St Pancras half a mile up the road.
I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?
Align it to State pension age.
That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.
But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?
Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.
We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.
If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...
You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.
It's not Labour (unless someone has a link?). It's the Telegraph quoting a report from the Intergenerational Federation.
The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.
AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.
They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have
Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995
TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar
I know Number 10 can be a “crazy place” but really?
538 actually has Trump leading in North Carolina by 0.9%.
It's all far too close for comfort.
WRT the Senate, my view is that if Ohio goes for Trump by 5% +, Brown will not hold his seat. Popular Senators can obtain a personal vote, but not enough to run hugely against the tide.
Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have
Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995
TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar
I know Number 10 can be a “crazy place” but really?
If you can remember did you get the real experience?
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
How does this differ from the arrangement presently commonplace of getting your pension provider to buy units from an investment fund designed to do exactly that?
I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?
Align it to State pension age.
That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.
But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?
Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.
We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.
If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...
You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.
It's not Labour (unless someone has a link?). It's the Telegraph quoting a report from the Intergenerational Federation.
The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.
AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.
They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.
If Kamala Harris wins the election and becomes President and if there isn't an election in Ireland before the inauguration next January, or Fine Gael win enough seats to remain in office, then we will have a Harris as head of Government in Ireland and as head of Government in the US.
Have two countries ever had executive leaders with the same surname at the same time before?
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.
Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.
I was and I had the option to take a transfer rather than an annuity. I chose not to but I do have plenty of assets I am comfortable to manage.
However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.
Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.
I didn't know they were getting them free already anyway?
Align it to State pension age.
That's why it was set at 60 - because that was State pension age and equal opportunity legislation meant that men had to get it at the same age that women did.
But it's either 67 or 68 now, right?
Haven't googled it. Seems fairer to align there.
We can't afford these sort of nice freebies.
If you thought the reaction to WFP was bad...
You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.
It's not Labour (unless someone has a link?). It's the Telegraph quoting a report from the Intergenerational Federation.
The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.
AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.
They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.
I'm getting quite fed up with the Telegraph.
Thanks for spending the time to dig that all out.
I think they have invented a new form of performance art called the Shit Show.
“Donald J. Trump suggested in a radio interview on Monday that he had visited war-torn Gaza in the past, a place there is no record of him visiting. When asked to clarify, a campaign aide said that Gaza is “in Israel” and that Mr. Trump has visited Israel.”
I've visited Mars because Mars is in the solar system. In fact I live there.
Jenrick sabotaged his Tory leadership chances at conference, survey of members suggests, with Cleverly rising fast Conservative members were more likely to be turned off by what they saw of Robert Jenrick at the party conference than impressed, a survey suggests.
Jenrick arrived at the conference as the clear bookmakers’ favourite. But, according to a ConservativeHome survey of Tory members, only 23% of them said that what happened at conference made them more likely to support him – and 43% said they were less likely to support him afterwards.
Tom Tugendhat experienced a similar loss of support – but he is expected to be out of the contest by the end of today anyway as the candidate most likely to be eliminated in today’s ballot of MPs.
Conservative members favour Kemi Badenoch for next leader, according to numerous ConHome surveys, and proper polling, but 35% of respondents said conference made them less likely to support her, while 30% said the opposite.
The survey suggests the big winner was James Cleverly. Some 55% of Tories said conference made him a more attractive candidate, while only 14% said it didn’t.
From the same live thread, this tweet from the ITV deputy political editor: "Sorry to rant but the whole “boys club” thing irritates me. Of course there is a lot of focus on the Keir's, Morgan’s and (admittedly numerous) Matt’s but as I’ve discovered Keir Starmer would NOT be PM without the senior women in the operation"
Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather reporters avoided the grocer's apostrophe and did use an apostrophe when appropriate
If Kamala Harris wins the election and becomes President and if there isn't an election in Ireland before the inauguration next January, or Fine Gael win enough seats to remain in office, then we will have a Harris as head of Government in Ireland and as head of Government in the US.
Have two countries ever had executive leaders with the same surname at the same time before?
Louis I was King of Holland, while Napoleon I was Emperor of France. Both Bonapartes.
Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have
Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995
TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar
I know Number 10 can be a “crazy place” but really?
If you can remember did you get the real experience?
I nearly died that weekend by drinking neat morphine sulphate in vitro, stored in a flagon in my friend’s fridge
Am I the only PBer that’s actually BEEN INSIDE a crack den? Because I have
Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995
TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar...
If Kamala Harris wins the election and becomes President and if there isn't an election in Ireland before the inauguration next January, or Fine Gael win enough seats to remain in office, then we will have a Harris as head of Government in Ireland and as head of Government in the US.
Have two countries ever had executive leaders with the same surname at the same time before?
There were plenty of contemporary sovereigns surnamed Hapsburg and Bourbon.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.
Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.
I was and I had the option to take a transfer rather than an annuity. I chose not to but I do have plenty of assets I am comfortable to manage.
However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.
Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.
Oh, absolutely, people don't have the financial education, but it is far from as complicated as the industry makes out. I am a big supporter of financial education both in school and for adults. We teach the wrong things.
“ Citing a Trump aide, Woodward reports that there have been “maybe as many as seven” calls between Trump and Putin since Trump left the White House in 2021.”
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
It's a contribution based pension scheme - it won't have any impact on employer costs because once the money is paid into the fund by the employer that's the end of their responsibility.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
What is the advantage, if any, of the schemes being collective rather than individual?
In theory the risk is shared across more people so in theory you could invest some of the money in more riskier ventures.
Is the post office pension scheme going to have more customers than Vanguard? Or more holdings than the 30,751 in their LifeStrategy60 fund? Clearly not, but I bet it will be a damn sight more expensive.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
You can, I can, probably most on here can. But plenty can't.
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
I assume because you are on a defined benefit pension? Those are generally better than those of us with flexibility to choose our risk profile have.
Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.
I was and I had the option to take a transfer rather than an annuity. I chose not to but I do have plenty of assets I am comfortable to manage.
However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.
Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.
Oh, absolutely, people don't have the financial education, but it is far from as complicated as the industry makes out. I am a big supporter of financial education both in school and for adults. We teach the wrong things.
Torsten Bell @torstenbell.bsky.social · 1h The UK is seeing more deaths than births (ie natural population shrinkage) for the first time since the 1970s (pandemic aside obviously) www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...
Something very odd about those figures. England saw very slightly more births than deaths. But Wales and Scotland see vastly more (in proportion) deaths than births?
Eg in Scotland that’s 45,000 births and 65,000 deaths
Is Scotland dying out? Or is this a data glitch
The young move to London. And have their families in England.
Also immigrants move to London. And have their many more children/family there.
Comments
You've gotta respect Labour for having the courage to do stuff like this. I think it's all about settling the markets ahead of increased borrowing and capital spending in the budget.
But if you want, check back with me in 12-18 months time and let’s look at the figures.
Plans to broaden access to a new type of pension scheme allowing savings to be pooled have been set out by the Government.
Collective defined contribution (CDC) pension schemes have the potential to deliver reliable returns for savers, while ensuring more predictable costs for employers, the Government said.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/plans-to-modernise-pensions-market-set-out-by-government/ar-AA1rSTtW?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=faee51125109441d98810f62d27982f7&ei=16
Which regiment will these brave little soldiers be joining ?
Clearly the Christian church has its own legacy of crusading, and killing the infidel with God's blessing (via the Pope) but until a religion stops being so thoroughly abhorrent then I am afraid I will continue to regard its proponents as evil.
He is such a twat that he didn’t have a single friend in London to look after his kids that he had to drive to Durham to get childcare sorted.
Viagra was a game changer, the over 60s thought that since the women hit menopause there was no need for contraception as they couldn’t get pregnant, they didn’t realise that they could get STIs.
You then have the second question of would you invest in a fund that any government has control over - to which the answer is I'm not that stupid.
Might be better looking in silicon valley rather than Sunderland though.
However, It appears designed to facilitate investments in "British infrastructure".
How's that investment in Thames Water looking for the Canadian pension fund Omers (or Universities pension scheme for that matter) looking ?
Personally I'm somewhat unconvinced... but that's the theory at least.
Alongside their best national poll for Harris, they have Trump +13% in Texas.
The latest New York Times/Siena College polls:
National: Harris+3 - her best showing in a Times/Siena poll this cycle
Texas: Trump+6
Florida: Trump+13
https://x.com/Nate_Cohn/status/1843618979363131720
Still, I suppose they're not herding...
https://x.com/govrondesantis/status/1843618382962405765
Sounds like they’re planning for a very large incident. Let’s hope it dissipates before reaching land.
I will keep my money where it is. As far as I am concerned if Britain was worth investing in people would be doing it already. The fact it is not in the numbers required is something that should be addressed by making it more attractive to invest in not compelling pension funds to invest in "Britain"
This from the Govt announcement. The significant appetite being the advisers and fund managers who get their cut whatever the performance.
"Building on the significant appetite from industry for extending CDC provision, the Government is now seeking to broaden access further by allowing unconnected multiple employer schemes – making this pension model more accessible to a wider range of businesses and employees."
"This work builds on plans to review our pensions landscape as well as our new Pension Schemes Bill which could boost pension pots – with further consolidation and broader investment strategies to possibly deliver higher returns for pensioners."
Trump is +6 in TX from this. Desantis romped home by 19.4 against Christ in the midterms so +13 for Florida looks potentially plausible.
I suspect you and most of us on here would be classed as 'wrinklies' by many.
A big driver of it is simply that we have a smaller immigrant population. Despite our flat population, we also have a housing crisis with all the good jobs centred in a few urban centres, and women are increasingly highly educated and in good jobs.
We can also tailor our own risk profile individually rather than collectively which makes far more sense.
https://x.com/SkyCricket/status/1843609510524461437
You’d need to have some very serious Trustees prepared to resign on a point of principle when arguing with government. If the scheme goes South, it takes *everyone’s* pension saving with it.
If so that is going to be a nightmare as market expectations are not always correct. And if not, people can make those decisions individually more cheaply already, there is no advantage to it being collective.
Alcoholism charity executive caught drink-driving and hiding from police in bush
Marketing director of addiction charity receives 40-month driving ban after being found three times over legal limit
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/07/eliza-loftus-crewe-magistrates-court-drink-diving/
We know some DB pensions suffered adversely after the Mini Budget due to their exposure to LDI's.
My old DB fund moved from 0% LDI in 2010 to 25% LDI's at the time of the mini budget.
No accountability for the investment choice and I had no input into it. A CDC would be no different.
However lots of well paid advisers, who are advocating these schemes, will benefit in large fees.
Tugendhat (sadly - politically he's the best candidate) - hasn't got the right stuff at all, and the other two are in different ways capable of toxicity.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/nils-pratley-on-finance/2024/oct/07/euston-is-a-problem-without-a-good-solution
I don't blame any of these words for the evils of humans, whatever guise they adopt. And, BTW, there is no point in blaming God for anything unless there is a God.
It ended up at Euston because that is where the space is available..
It receives 6% of immigrants to the UK vs having 8%+ of population.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cw4y7p8gx37o
If they had a similar level, would this even be happening?
https://www.itv.com/news/2024-10-08/dutch-museum-worker-accidently-threw-meticulous-beer-can-artwork-in-bin
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/approval/kamala-harris/
I reckon it would be beyond a majority in the country.
He refused after the NC hurricane, but it's now leaning towards critical.
As I've said passim, a sane plan would have been for Crossrail to have been planned and designed to cope with HS2 sets; allowing (say) one service an hour to interconnect at Old Oak Common, go through central London on Crossrail, then join HS1 at Stratford to go on to Europe, if required, or Kent. It's far too late now, but that would have been true transport planning at its best.
It's really annoying when you see how close HS1 and Crossrail are at Stratford, and HS2 and Crossrail will be at OOC. It is a massively wasted opportunity.
One state has no legal standing at all to comment on how another conducts its elections.
https://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=hcr203 intr.htm&yr=2024&sesstype=2X&i=203&houseorig=h&billtype=cr
"... the State of West Virginia will not recognize an election of a candidate for President during the 2024 election cycle if the Attorney General of West Virginia or the Secretary of State of West Virginia, in consultation with the West Virginia Legislature, determine that election fraud in any state was a major reason that resulted in a candidate for President obtaining a majority in the Electoral College"..
Pension transfers are relatively simple otherwise aiui.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/07/us/politics/trump-gaza-israel.html
“Donald J. Trump suggested in a radio interview on Monday that he had visited war-torn Gaza in the past, a place there is no record of him visiting. When asked to clarify, a campaign aide said that Gaza is “in Israel” and that Mr. Trump has visited Israel.”
The people who consulted on this were the Johnson Government. The T are trying to scaremonger their youngest readers in the 60-66 age bracket.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age
Here's the link to the consultation report published in 2023:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age/outcome/aligning-the-upper-age-for-nhs-prescription-charge-exemptions-with-the-state-pension-age-government-response
Rishi Sunk's Govt ran away from doing it, unsurprisingly (I think June 2023 was his time on the rotatory, wasn't it?):
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/free-prescription-age-frozen-at-60
AFAICS the numbers in the Telegraph article are standard Telegraph Turbo-Bollocks, but I'll post that separately.
They are trying to seed fake narratives to scare Tory supporters back into line, and running flags up flagpoles to see what works. That or the writer dropped his bifocals.
Moss Side, Manchester, about 1995
TBH I’d be surprised if it resembled Theresa May’s apartment at Number 10. It was a derelict council flat with zero furniture and water dripping in through the ceiling and a pervasive smell of urine and dirt. There was barely any light - most of it came from the flames the users applied to the drugs. Rats skittered along the kitchen floor. And the guy who helped us score had a massive wound in his chest from a recent shot gun blast and when he got high he kept stripping off to proudly show us the atrocious scar
I know Number 10 can be a “crazy place” but really?
It's all far too close for comfort.
WRT the Senate, my view is that if Ohio goes for Trump by 5% +, Brown will not hold his seat. Popular Senators can obtain a personal vote, but not enough to run hugely against the tide.
Thanks for spending the time to dig that all out.
Have two countries ever had executive leaders with the same surname at the same time before?
However, Mrs P. for example - an intelligent, highly educated person - would not be comfortable managing her own investment portfolio and in the event of my demise would no doubt turn to an IFA to take care of it all for her.
Then you have huge swathes of the population, not very well-educated or intelligent, who frankly wouldn't have a clue what to do to look after their pension assets.
Thousands of seals making Thames Estuary their home
@DougSeal
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/oct/08/boris-johnson-hits-out-at-greedy-keir-starmer-over-freebies
...because I live near Guildford.
"Sorry to rant but the whole “boys club” thing irritates me. Of course there is a lot of focus on the Keir's, Morgan’s and (admittedly numerous) Matt’s but as I’ve discovered Keir Starmer would NOT be PM without the senior women in the operation"
Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather reporters avoided the grocer's apostrophe and did use an apostrophe when appropriate
“ Citing a Trump aide, Woodward reports that there have been “maybe as many as seven” calls between Trump and Putin since Trump left the White House in 2021.”