There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes, the suicide framing is a little disingenuous.
No it really isn't. Because if you actually read the Bill it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves. So it will do precisely nothing for those cases - which are the ones which have come to court - where the person is unable to do even that. They would not be able to be helped by this Bill.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
I disagree. The suicide framing is disingenuous. They are very different things.
1). The animal comparison is not facile. It is about relieving suffering: and that is something that is not being considered enough in humans. Suffering. In the eyes of many, animals cannot be allowed to suffer. In the eyes of some, people must suffer until they die 'naturally' - whatever that means with modern medicine, which can unnaturally extend the end.
2). We are not talking about Canada; we are talking about the law as it is proposed here. We can allow Canada to inform the debate, but the laws are different. Palliative care is good for those who want it, and should get more investment, but it is not a solution for those who do not. And it is disingenuous to suggest that everyone would want palliative care as an alternative.
The deeply selfish thing is allowing people to suffer who do not want to suffer just because others selfishly value 'life' as a concept.
Prolonging unwanted suffering is deeply wrong.
As I've said before; this bill might not be the correct bill for this. But something needs to be done to allow people who are nearing the end of their lives a more compassionate and pain-free way out.
Like Cyclefree I'm wary of drawing any conclusion from the treatment of animals. Animals are frequently put to sleep for reasons that having nothing to do with relieving their suffering.
Quota, from the Twitter, on changing voter coalitions:
It would be fascinating to see similar for the Cons and Lab here. My feeling is that it probably would be quite a similar story. Probably easy enough to do with the BES and a bit of time...
So basically the rich but not very bright can always be guaranteed to vote for a rightwing party and the poor but intelligent can always be guaranteed to vote for a left liberal party.
All other voters though can and will swing in terms of where they vote
George Will provides a succinct summary of Musk's problem: "Debt service (13.1 percent of fiscal 2024 spending) is not optional and is larger than defense (12.9 percent), which Trump wants to increase. Entitlements (principally Social Security and Medicare) are 34.6 percent, and by Trumpian fiat are sacrosanct. So, Musk’s promise is to cut about 30 percent of the total budget from a roughly 40 percent portion of the budget, politics be damned." source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/11/13/donald-trump-elon-musk-federal-spending/
Veterans Affairs is also sacrosanct.
So 30% of the budget from the 35% that isn't sacrosanct so roughly 85% of everything else...
Surely it’s the service provided that’s sacrosanct, rather than the budget? The challenge is to deliver the same service for less money, with one example given of renegotiating prices paid for drugs.
That is the goal.
The problem is that some large elements of the budget - notably Social Security and Interest - are not areas where there are efficiency gains to be had. People were promised something (retirement income or interest on debt), and they expect to receive it.
And the area where there is the biggest opportunity to save money - healthcare - is also the hardest to solve, because it's not like the government owns the hospitals or the drug companies. (Who all are large donors to Congressmen and Senators of all political hues.)
Isn't the proportion of advertising spending that comes from pharmacutecal companies also pretty enormous, outside of election campaigns? In which case you end up pissing off the media as well.
Even if Chesterton's Fence is there for a bad reason, it's still there for a reason.
There have been a few times in my life when I have felt so bad that I have wanted to die. When I felt that I did not deserve to live, that the world would be improved by removing myself from it.
One of the factors that prevented me from following through on this was struggling to think of how to die without being even more troublesome to the world I would leave behind. Suicide inevitably creates a mess.
One thing that makes me incredibly nervous about assisted dying is that it would open up an avenue where those problems would be dealt with. I could imagine feeling some relief at accepting the offer of an assisted death, and having professionals to help me with it. This makes me feel very unsafe.
This bill limits use to someone who is likely to die within 6 months according to a doctor. It's for the terminally ill, not the same as suicide.
Yes, the suicide framing is a little disingenuous.
No it really isn't. Because if you actually read the Bill it is specifically about changing the 1961 Suicide Act to remove the criminalisation of those who assist a suicide. It also specifically states that the person must actually do the act themselves ie lift the cup containing poison to their own lips or press the syringe into themselves. So it will do precisely nothing for those cases - which are the ones which have come to court - where the person is unable to do even that. They would not be able to be helped by this Bill.
It is being presented dishonestly. The underlying premise is wrong because people are able now to end their life at a time and in a way of their own choosing. This Bill makes no change to that at all. It does not give someone the right to actively end the life of another person because that would be euthanasia - rather than assisted suicide. Though I strongly suspect that that is where the proponents of this Bill want to go.
I will also pick up on some other of your and @BartholomewRoberts' comments.
1. The comparison with animals is facile. Animals do not ask us to kill them. We are not fulfilling their wishes. We make the decision to kill them for all sorts of reasons.
2. Suicide is often a cry for help. Yes it is. So is a demand by a disabled person for a ramp at home to help them live more comfortably. But the response to just such a request in Canada was to suggest assisted dying instead. People who are lonely, depressed, worried about being a burden or their finances or whether they will get proper social care may well seek to end their lives because there is no alternative. But the reality is that they are asking for help and because we don't want to spend money on social care or palliative care or proper care for the disabled or proper mental health care and support or any of the things that would help improve the lives of those who need and want our help we're going to offer them an early death instead.
There is something deeply chilling and selfish about such a society. Until we have properly invested in palliative care, in mental health care, in care for the disabled, in social care, we should not be talking - as this Bill does - about imposing a legal duty on a health care system to offer death as a service.
I disagree. The suicide framing is disingenuous. They are very different things.
1). The animal comparison is not facile. It is about relieving suffering: and that is something that is not being considered enough in humans. Suffering. In the eyes of many, animals cannot be allowed to suffer. In the eyes of some, people must suffer until they die 'naturally' - whatever that means with modern medicine, which can unnaturally extend the end.
2). We are not talking about Canada; we are talking about the law as it is proposed here. We can allow Canada to inform the debate, but the laws are different. Palliative care is good for those who want it, and should get more investment, but it is not a solution for those who do not. And it is disingenuous to suggest that everyone would want palliative care as an alternative.
The deeply selfish thing is allowing people to suffer who do not want to suffer just because others selfishly value 'life' as a concept.
Prolonging unwanted suffering is deeply wrong.
As I've said before; this bill might not be the correct bill for this. But something needs to be done to allow people who are nearing the end of their lives a more compassionate and pain-free way out.
Like Cyclefree I'm wary of drawing any conclusion from the treatment of animals. Animals are frequently put to sleep for reasons that having nothing to do with relieving their suffering.
But they are also often put to sleep to relieve their suffering, which is what we're talking about here.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
Either we get government efficient or America goes bankrupt.
That’s what it comes down to.
Wish I were wrong, but it’s true.
This is why I think Musk won't be associated with Trump by 2026.
A lot of businessmen struggle with this going in. They think they are the CEO, will dictate what needs doing, and it will be done. Then they realise that Iowa has farmers, West Virginia has miners, and everywhere has pensioners... laying down the law to members of congress, senators and governors, particularly after the honeymoon wears off, is really hard. As soon as it gets into the political sausage-maker stage, he'll find it really difficult, and his mind isn't really wired in that way at the best of times.
Yes, the easy bit is identifying all the waste in budgets and legislation, of which there is plenty in the US.
The difficult bit is then passing whatever legislation is required to fix the problem. It’s even more of a nightmare when most of those involved in passing legislation are bought and paid for by the corporates and industries that are the largest beneficiaries of the waste.
Hasn't Trump an advantage here? He can't stand for President again so if he leaves a mess does he care? Especially if, in 2028/9, he's quarrelled with even more people than he has now.
Trump has the advantage of not standing again, but there’s not a lot he can do without support from the House and Senate, which are full of people reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected. Industries that have worked hard over decades to make sure they are present in every State and most Congressional districts, so any talk of budget cuts is immediately linked to jobs in their home towns.
The assumption that they are reliant on donations from big industries to be re-elected must be due for a reassessment given that Kamala Harris has just failed to get elected despite spending a billion dollars.
The big corporations are utterly ruthless when it comes to these things though. They routinely do stuff like take a Congressman in a safe disctrict, with a job for life, and close a facility in that area, while throwing millions at a primary challenger who will start campigning immediately on the single issue of the Congressman being responsible for the facility closure.
Sadly, this is entirely true. (And @williamglenn, note the smartness of this. They aren't backing the other party... they're backing a challenger in a Primary, which is a much smaller election, and a much easier one to swing.)
There are so many examples of democracy failing us, that it isn’t surprising that people are increasingly wondering whether a benign dictatorship might work for us so much better.
The two problems being, firstly, once installed, it can be very difficult to ensure that a dictatorship remains benign. Power corrupts, and it is a rare dictator that remains sane and benign as the years in office chalk up.
IIRC the Romans had a Dictator insurance policy of a one year term limit for Dictators.
Marius, Sulla and Julius Caesar have entered the chat.
It was more enlightened than the modern version:
The reasons for which someone might be appointed dictator were varied. The purpose of the dictatorship was to return Rome to the status quo before some threat emerged. The dictatorship existed "to eliminate whatever had arisen that was out of bounds and then eliminate themselves so that normal operation of the ordinary government" could resume. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_dictator
Sulla and Marius* slaughtered their opponents, stole property etc. just like the modern chaps.
Pompey got them to invent a new job - sole Consul - to avoid the opprobrium the office of Dictator had already acquired.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
You can get a draft LPOA on the Government website and complete it yourself; no need for a solicitor.
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
If you are above a certain age then it is imperative you get a LPOA sorted out. The age is a personal thing - but an age at which you can start to realistically be in with a good chance of stuff going wrong. Certainly by 60 I would say.
If you become incapacitated and you do not have a LPOA you are leaving a total fucking mess for your relatives and the need for a court order process. You may find there are issues with your care or finances that cannot be sorted quickly because there is no attorney. If you are very incapacity you may of course have no idea, but your loved ones will.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
No it's not. It's a tax on property.
There is a lot of chat on PB about making the tax system relatively better for working people. Increasing council tax in lieu of other tax increases (like NICs) would meet that objective.
Political suicide, but I'd reform council tax and link it to home values (with a big discount for flats and terraced housing, to make it a proxy land tax) and double it as a proportion of the tax burden.
And council tax payers are not working people ?
Not all of them, no. For example, do you pay it as a pensioner who is not a working person?
Liability is a list of people associated with the property, starting with I think the types of occupier. It is defined in the relevant section of the relevant Act.
(Update. Went and checked. The hierarchy of liability is from the top down.
A freehold owner/occupier living in the property A leasehold owner/occupier living in the property A tenant living in the property A person living in the property who is a licensee (not a tenant, but has permission to stay there) Any person living in the property (this includes people living in the property with or without permission of the owner) An owner of the property, where the property is unoccupied.
This is one of those highly obscure technical things an LL needs to know where to find out about at the back of the mind.)
Calling it a tax on working people is a category error, as this does not define it. We could also call VAT a tax on working people, but that is also a category error.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
I could work for the government but I’d take a 20% pay cut for the same role.
But then I’ve always thought civil servants and politicians were underpaid.
Big photo/pictures for walls are becoming trendy. Mainly of flowers and stuff. Our local Boots Specs has one across a whole side wall. Cheaply available from the online Chy-Nar marts.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
You can get a draft LPOA on the Government website and complete it yourself; no need for a solicitor.
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
If you are above a certain age then it is imperative you get a LPOA sorted out. The age is a personal thing - but an age at which you can start to realistically be in with a good chance of stuff going wrong. Certainly by 60 I would say.
If you become incapacitated and you do not have a LPOA you are leaving a total fucking mess for your relatives and the need for a court order process. You may find there are issues with your care or finances that cannot be sorted quickly because there is no attorney. If you are very incapacity you may of course have no idea, but your loved ones will.
Also sorry for the cutting and pasting but just seen this regarding yesterday's news
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
Indeed, it would.
The starting point is to consider who on earth when mentally incapacitated in old age would want their life prolonged. Any reasonable person would say not. This is a reasonable assumption to make in the absence of other information and should be the default rather than vice versa as now.
Also - we live in a liberal democracy and could look toward J S Mill on this. Mill excluded from his perception of liberal democracy those "without the ordinary amount of understanding”.
Mental incapacity is not a binary state in most cases. There are gradations. So it's rather like the Yes Prime Minister argument about first use of nuclear weapons. At which point have your mental faculties deteriorated so much that you would rather die? I would find it very hard to draw a line.
I suspect that, as long as I was fit to make a judgement, I would be fit enough that life would be still worth living. So then someone else would have to decide. At which point I am unsure about giving someone else the power to decide over my life, and, if they get the judgement wrong, well, I'll be dead so who could prove that they did?
You make good points.
But mental decline is also generally one-directional; you rarely improve. You can say I am happy at the moment, but if I decline further, then I'll find life intolerably miserable, particularly if I get much worse.
These are the sorts of discussions around scenarios that I think need to be had, so that then we can try to frame rules to govern the process, which can be codified into law.
I'd be happy enough for a timetabled process to be started now with the aim of creating a law to be voted on in, say, three years time.
Also sorry for the cutting and pasting but just seen this regarding yesterday's news
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
And Halifax Clarity do not impose a per-transaction foreign currency charge, which many others do. I use mine abroad without any impact.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
The problem is that a great pension doesn't pay (say) next month's increase in rent
Another bumper set of local by-elections tomorrow - many caused by new MPs resigning. Labour have a lot of defences - 2 in East Ayrshire, 2 in Telford and Wrekin, and 1 each in Edinburgh, Greenwich, Redbridge, West Lothian, and West Oxfordshire. The Lib Dems are defending 2 in Milton Keynes and the Greens 1 in Derbyshire Dales. There are no Con defences. Sadly only 4 are counting on the night.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
And Halifax Clarity do not impose a per-transaction foreign currency charge, which many others do. I use mine abroad without any impact.
It's one of the the few that doesn't
I have 2 default credit cards -
A Lloyds World Elite - which gives me lounge access and 1% cashback - it also has a fee that the 1% cashback more than covers. Ironically the card charges for overseas use is insane. A Halifax Clarity which is used for all non sterling transactions as there are no foreign currency charges at all.
Looks like GOP will continue to become completely the Cult.
Bill Kristol @BillKristol · 41m Well, this question of mine from earlier this morning has already been answered.
“I’m confident there’s zero chance incoming Armed Services chair Sen. Roger Wicker would think Hegseth an appropriate, or even a defensible, selection…Will he say publicly what he knows privately?”
Manu Raju @mkraju The top R on Senate Armed Services, Roger Wicker, said he doesn’t have any concerns about Fox News host Pete Hegseth’s qualifications to run the Department of Defense.
“No, I don't have concerns. I'm delighted at the prospect of working with,” Wicker said, per @tedbarrettcnn
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
Johnson was a terrible person who should never been made PM. Only a complete nincompoop couldn't have worked this out in advance.
Cummings was a crank and a terrible person who never should have worked for any PM. Choosing him as his alter ego was one of the worst mistakes Boris ever made.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
It might have worked if they hadn't immediately surrendered to the public sector unions. I think that is the most damaging thing they did. And I know there's going to be loads of people posting polls that the individual measures were largely supported by the public but I can feel that people are unhappy with this and being asked to make huge increases tax contributions to pay for it. It will be something that will show up in the polling booth in 2029, not in polls today.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I disagree. They compare headline pay unfavourably to the private sector, where pensions are 5-6%, rather than the 25-38% in the public sector, plus extra leave, benefits and job security with no real commercial pressures.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
The problem is that a great pension doesn't pay (say) next month's increase in rent
Well, then you could offer a choice: a 20% pay increase in exchange for reduced pension contributions.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
And Halifax Clarity do not impose a per-transaction foreign currency charge, which many others do. I use mine abroad without any impact.
An important point about the Clarity card is that, just like other credit cards, cash withdrawals attract interest from day one. So you *can* withdraw cash free of FX charges, but you must go online the same or next day and pay it off from your bank account.
Also sorry for the cutting and pasting but just seen this regarding yesterday's news
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
At this rate the King will end up coronating himself.
Also sorry for the cutting and pasting but just seen this regarding yesterday's news
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed
I never really understood how that was possible in the days of analogue photography. Certainly very impressive.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
And Halifax Clarity do not impose a per-transaction foreign currency charge, which many others do. I use mine abroad without any impact.
An important point about the Clarity card is that, just like other credit cards, cash withdrawals attract interest from day one. So you *can* withdraw cash free of FX charges, but you must go online the same or next day and pay it off from your bank account.
Going to be very clear here
1) Chase for a debit card (seems to be the best option) use it to get cash out. 2) Halifax Clarity as a backup card - use it for purchases and only at a cash point as the very last resort. As Carnforth says if you do use it to take money out from a cash point pay that money off the credit card immediately to avoid interest.
But credit cards are great when you are abroad because it means any tricks played are not touching the money in your current account..
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
I didn't know you were talking about Railways - I can bore you for hours there regarding the WCML where the reason why they are paid so much is that Virgin always agreed because they wanted the trains to keep running.
Remember the cost of the driver is usually less than the ticket price of the first two people sat in first class...
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.
Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?
There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
We only need to look at how SpaceX managed to turn the rocket industry upside-down, to imagine how much disruption there could be in the military industrial complex.
But as with the pharma industry, they’ve got the politicians bought and paid for, and that trillion dollars supports thousands of jobs in every single State, and the constituencies of the vast majority of Representatives.
Evidence that the Pharma industry has bought and paid for politicians?
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
I didn't know you were talking about Railways - I can bore you for hours there regarding the WCML where the reason why they are paid so much is that Virgin always agreed because they wanted the trains to keep running.
Remember the cost of the driver is usually less than the ticket price of the first two people sat in first class...
But those costs are structural because of the unionised structure of the railway.
The market is not a true one. Railways are highly regulated top to toe.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
I didn't know you were talking about Railways - I can bore you for hours there regarding the WCML where the reason why they are paid so much is that Virgin always agreed because they wanted the trains to keep running.
Remember the cost of the driver is usually less than the ticket price of the first two people sat in first class...
But those costs are structural because of the unionised structure of the railway.
The market is not a true one. Railways are highly regulated top to toe.
And the biggest of the messes were created after the privatised companies sought to maximise revenue by minimising strikes.
Which is why all the franchises now have very different employment terms compared to the 1980s...
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
It might have worked if they hadn't immediately surrendered to the public sector unions. I think that is the most damaging thing they did. And I know there's going to be loads of people posting polls that the individual measures were largely supported by the public but I can feel that people are unhappy with this and being asked to make huge increases tax contributions to pay for it. It will be something that will show up in the polling booth in 2029, not in polls today.
There was probably a £8-9bn "hole", and public sector pay would have gone up 3-4% with Hunt/Sunak back in charge. But, they wouldn't have jacked it up to the nines, and then splurged on State largesse with an extra £40bn of tax on top. Nor spunked out over £20bn on CCUS.
Hunt would probably have fiddled with tax threshold freezes, maybe tweaked CG tax rates a bit to balance, and otherwise left things as they are. Incl. fuel.h
The argument would be that public sector spending could then increase as debt came down, and the economy grew later in the parliament.
Let's not forget that one of the few speeches over the decades from Lord Ali in the HoL was in support of assisted dying. No surprise this is trying to be rushed through without much scrutiny or debate.
On PMQs, Badenoch did fine. She is still clunky, but she is making sure that Starmer is personally wrapping himself to the budget and the consequences of it.
It isn't popular, the implications for many will be dire and he is appearing churlish, condescending and rude to those who are questioning it.
I think PMQs is an exercise of getting the PM to say clipable comments that the Tories can rely on right wing content creators to pick apart on social media. Starmer is falling for it.
Starmer is prissy and rude and Kemi still isn't very confident. She needs to work on that.
There's a standard line she should use every time a Labour drone or the PM try and ask her a question: "if the honorable member wants me to answer the questions I'm very happy to cross the floor and take his place as PM! If not, the PM will need to answer mine..."
She needs to say this every time.
Said of every opposition leader I can recall.
I wonder if Kemi is quite isolated within the party. She hasn't promoted anyone in the Jenrick/Hayes wing except RJ hinself to a fairly junior role, so they're not going to be falling over themselves to help. At the same time, she can't really embrace the soggy element or she will completely lose all credibility in her reform/learn from the election agenda. Who is coaching her for PMQs?
Well at least she wasn't embarrassed by Starmer unlike when he put Farage back in his box today
I haven't seen it - I suspect recollections may vary.
So which tribe are you now, Lucky? We have established you are not Thatcherite, as most Conservatives aren’t these days, as Lady Thatchers instincts would 100% have been to protect household incomes during historic credit crunch.
Cos Boris said - change the points system to open the floodgates cos I want to make friends with the FT. *LITERAL QUOTE*
I am always very wary of Big Dom quotes, he is rather expert at not giving any context and letting the media run with it, often well aware that the context was Boris either being stroppy and going f##k you all, i hope everybody dies, screw you guys i'm going home...or he wasn't being serious and joking around.
Of course he was.
"Pile the bodies high" was satire at its finest. Er, wasn't it?
Also sorry for the cutting and pasting but just seen this regarding yesterday's news
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Indeed
I never really understood how that was possible in the days of analogue photography. Certainly very impressive.
In the second image, checkout how they added a little too much extra river where his hat was, with the wall behind.
Literal cut and paste and a bit of painting by hand on large negative....
This law may be badly drafted and insufficiently debated - which is not good.
But we need to allow assisted dying for individuals with mental capacity IMO and we need to start somewhere.
Even more, we need to allow assisted dying for people without mental capacity. If a person has not got mental capacity and attorneys are in place (LPOA) then the attorneys are, in effect, that person. Therefore coercion from attorney/s is impossible, logically. There is the possibility of coercion by others on the attorneys, this is true, but I don't see this is very likely.
I have LPOA for my parents. That would be a hell of a decision. Mind you, it would facilitate such discussions while setting up the LPOA - we did discuss things like DNAR orders and limits on care etc. If assisted dying was a thing then we'd no doubt have discussed whether there were any circumstances in which that would be pursued and what the criteria would be.
It's quite an exercise writing one of those. One really needs two; one for Financial Affairs and one for Medical. We've set up, and registered both for both of us; we claim to be of sound mind at the moment, but who knows what the future holds. I never thought, when I was considering them that I'd be in the state I am now.
Mr Selebian, upthread, makes a good point about cremation vs a woodland burial, and one which caused me, as they say, furiously to think. At least with the latter one's family are left with somewhere to go and remember, should they wish; with a cremation they are left with the problem of disposing of the ashes, although they can, of course, always be left at the crematorium.
When we did those for mum several years before she died, it was about £800 to have it done by the family solicitor.
Why is disposing of the ashes a problem (seriously)?
You can even scatter yourselves should you wish. We put both parent's ashes in a columbarium under a joint plaque - the first in 2009, and added the second in 2019.
It was entirely handled by the undertaker, who's office and house is next door to the churchyard which itself is 2 fields away from where they used to live for 33 years.
That may be a more localised arrangement than usual, but I think there are a wide range of services are out there. Including long barrows if you are an historically imaginative pagan, as most of them tend to be.
You can get a draft LPOA on the Government website and complete it yourself; no need for a solicitor.
As far as disposal of the ashes is concerned the 'problem' is an agreed decision; my grandparents' were left at the crematorium, as were my fathers. My sister scattered our mothers off a cliff where my mother had liked to sit and watch the waves. Our churchyard has an 'allocated area' for urns and ashes.
If you are above a certain age then it is imperative you get a LPOA sorted out. The age is a personal thing - but an age at which you can start to realistically be in with a good chance of stuff going wrong. Certainly by 60 I would say.
If you become incapacitated and you do not have a LPOA you are leaving a total fucking mess for your relatives and the need for a court order process. You may find there are issues with your care or finances that cannot be sorted quickly because there is no attorney. If you are very incapacity you may of course have no idea, but your loved ones will.
It's actually 2, finance and care are separate LPOAs, as you find out when, while finance was done in plenty of time, care hasn't been and mental capacity is a requirement to set it up. That'll become a lot harder to do at a late stage if assisted dying is legalised, a lot more at stake for your family solicitor.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
According to the ORR, staffing is 31% of the cost bases of the Train Operating Companies. So its a substantial element, but not most of the cost.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.
Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?
There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
We only need to look at how SpaceX managed to turn the rocket industry upside-down, to imagine how much disruption there could be in the military industrial complex.
But as with the pharma industry, they’ve got the politicians bought and paid for, and that trillion dollars supports thousands of jobs in every single State, and the constituencies of the vast majority of Representatives.
Evidence that the Pharma industry has bought and paid for politicians?
A list of politicians that spoke against government price bargaining and compare that to donations from Pharma?
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
Come on cookie, you're just a closeted woke leftie liberal. We all know it, stop pretending (I do think you're pretty liberal for what it's worth)
That said, I'd be intrigued to see a list of posters (plural may be unjustified!) whom hyufd does not consider to be left liberal, remembering that he is, I think the only True Conservative in the village forum (BigG for example defintely does not cut it, I believe)
I am not a pure and true [right wing] conservative and betrayed the party by voting for Blair but to be fair I have never voted Plaid unlike @HYUFD
Heretic.
Please step this way to your involuntary cremation. In the interests of recycling we are using this location
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
Come on cookie, you're just a closeted woke leftie liberal. We all know it, stop pretending (I do think you're pretty liberal for what it's worth)
That said, I'd be intrigued to see a list of posters (plural may be unjustified!) whom hyufd does not consider to be left liberal, remembering that he is, I think the only True Conservative in the village forum (BigG for example defintely does not cut it, I believe)
I am not a pure and true [right wing] conservative and betrayed the party by voting for Blair but to be fair I have never voted Plaid unlike @HYUFD
Heretic.
Please step this way to your involuntary cremation. In the interests of recycling we are using this location
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I disagree. They compare headline pay unfavourably to the private sector, where pensions are 5-6%, rather than the 25-38% in the public sector, plus extra leave, benefits and job security with no real commercial pressures.
Cushty.
Yet many public sector jobs are impossible to fill and retain staff in, such as teaching, nursing etc.
Maybe it's not the brilliant package at all, otherwise market forces would keep the jobs filled.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I disagree. They compare headline pay unfavourably to the private sector, where pensions are 5-6%, rather than the 25-38% in the public sector, plus extra leave, benefits and job security with no real commercial pressures.
Cushty.
Yet many public sector jobs are impossible to fill and retain staff in, such as teaching, nursing etc.
Maybe it's not the brilliant package at all, otherwise market forces would keep the jobs filled.
The thing is that most people don't think of the pension at the start of a career. Mostly at the end....
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I disagree. They compare headline pay unfavourably to the private sector, where pensions are 5-6%, rather than the 25-38% in the public sector, plus extra leave, benefits and job security with no real commercial pressures.
Cushty.
Yet many public sector jobs are impossible to fill and retain staff in, such as teaching, nursing etc.
Maybe it's not the brilliant package at all, otherwise market forces would keep the jobs filled.
The thing is that most people don't think of the pension at the start of a career. Mostly at the end....
We know people value the pension because they are willing to strike, and forego pay in the short term, in order to protect it.
my daughter is considering a Revolut account for a prolonged trip abroad. I know some are concerned with Revolut - are Monzo or Starling better alternatives and do they do the same thing?
What are you aiming to do
Save now money in foreign currencies for when they are there or just cheap exchange of money when abroad.
You also want to think about what you want from a current account and what you pull from a credit card - the last thing you want is your debit card disappearing and the account being emptied
if you are involved use something like a Halifax Clarity credit card because again that does foreign exchange purchases at mastercard wholesale rates.
And Halifax Clarity do not impose a per-transaction foreign currency charge, which many others do. I use mine abroad without any impact.
It's one of the the few that doesn't
I have 2 default credit cards -
A Lloyds World Elite - which gives me lounge access and 1% cashback - it also has a fee that the 1% cashback more than covers. Ironically the card charges for overseas use is insane. A Halifax Clarity which is used for all non sterling transactions as there are no foreign currency charges at all.
what exchange rate do they use? My Wise account uses the "mid-market exchange rate"
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.
Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?
There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
We only need to look at how SpaceX managed to turn the rocket industry upside-down, to imagine how much disruption there could be in the military industrial complex.
But as with the pharma industry, they’ve got the politicians bought and paid for, and that trillion dollars supports thousands of jobs in every single State, and the constituencies of the vast majority of Representatives.
Evidence that the Pharma industry has bought and paid for politicians?
A list of politicians that spoke against government price bargaining and compare that to donations from Pharma?
$327,000,000 given to politicians and political parties in the last 12 months.
So, how much efficiency saving do we think the US government can actually find, by giving two businessmen the task of looking through the budget line by line to find things that are surplus to requirements?
The current US Federal budget is around $6.8trn, and the deficit $1.8trn per year. More than $1trn is spent annually on debt interest, which is now higher than the defence budget.
There’s loads of examples of a few million here and there on silly projects or academic studies, but can they actually find trillions when they’re all added up, and can they convince Congress to pass the appropriate legislation against the wishes of the many donors and lobbyists in Washington?
Around two-thirds of the US Federal Budget is made up is Mandatory Spending, that is "locked in" unless Congress passes laws to actually change it. This is Interest ($1trn), Social Security ($1.4trn), Medicare & Medicaid ($1.5trn), and support for welfare programs for low income Americans, such as SNAP and Earned Income Tax Credit ($1.1trn).
That's close to $5bn of the Federal Government's spending that is Mandatory and would require laws passed by Congress to change.
The rest of spending is theoretically Discretionary in nature: Defense ($773bn), Veteran's Affairs ($303bn), Energy ($45bn), Education ($80bn), NASA ($25bn), the FDA ($7bn) and the like,
The reality is that a lot of the Discretionary Spending is essentially untouchable. Veteran's Affairs is healthcare and pensions for ex-servicemen and their families. There is literally no way that can be touched. And I'm not sure that Defense can easily be signifcantly reduced either.
One could, of course, close down the Departments of Energy and Education (although I suspect there might be some impacts from that), but the total saved would be tiny - $125bn out of a budget of $6.8 trillion or just 2% of the total. The FDA could likewise be shuttered, albeit its duties are mandated by Congress, and its budget is miniscule.
In other words, I think we can reasonably assume that getting massive savings from the Federal Government without cutting into Mandatory Spending is going to be next to impossible.
And here's the kicker: the US like other countries is getting older. That means that the amount that is due to be spent on Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security and Veterans Affairs will grow faster than the economy going forward almost irrespective of what the government does.
Given I'm also not convinced that Republican lawmakers are going to be lining up to cut payments to their constituents, I think Elon Musk and Donald Trump face an extremely uphill battle in substantially reducing US Government expenditure.
---
On the subject of interest, it does bear mentioning that the effective (real) value of US national debt falls by inflation every year. So if your budget deficit each year is just the interest payment, then in inflation adjusted terms, the value of your debt remains stable. And if you consider the value of the national debt relative to GDP, then (as the economy usually grows) in this scenario national debt as a percentage of GDP would decline. So: I wouldn't worry *too much* about interest payments.
The lowest of low hanging fruit is the defense budget. It is plainly ridiculous to blow $1 trillion per year on that - half of the world's total military spend - if the US is to become more isolationist and parochial.
It should really be able to fund itself via conquest rather than expecting taxpayers to subsidise it.
If procurement was based on efficiency, rather than protecting a political jobs pyramid, that could probably be halved.
Same in the UK - spending X% of GDP is one thing. But on what?
There are some signs in the US, that low cost vendors are starting to break into the military market. Solid rocket motors, for various weapons, as a start. Some of the numbers there are startling. 10x lower price than legacy vendors, with increased reliability and performance under test.
We only need to look at how SpaceX managed to turn the rocket industry upside-down, to imagine how much disruption there could be in the military industrial complex.
But as with the pharma industry, they’ve got the politicians bought and paid for, and that trillion dollars supports thousands of jobs in every single State, and the constituencies of the vast majority of Representatives.
Evidence that the Pharma industry has bought and paid for politicians?
A list of politicians that spoke against government price bargaining and compare that to donations from Pharma?
$327,000,000 given to politicians and political parties in the last 12 months.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I disagree. They compare headline pay unfavourably to the private sector, where pensions are 5-6%, rather than the 25-38% in the public sector, plus extra leave, benefits and job security with no real commercial pressures.
Cushty.
Yet many public sector jobs are impossible to fill and retain staff in, such as teaching, nursing etc.
Maybe it's not the brilliant package at all, otherwise market forces would keep the jobs filled.
Except they're not impossible.
A friend of mine has just made a career switch to become one.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
I wouldn't say that was actually the case in a lot of cases. Granted I'm expensive and know my value but for my skillset what the Government is paying including pension still wouldn't match what the private sector would pay for a consultant to then put on Government work at £1500/2000 a day...
Besides, a core conservative principle is that you can't buck the market, the price is what it is.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
I don't see the evidence for that.
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
According to the ORR, staffing is 31% of the cost bases of the Train Operating Companies. So its a substantial element, but not most of the cost.
TOCs aren't the whole railway, and that doesn't include for Network Rail.
Even then that seems a very low number and worth digging into to see how they've calculated it.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Can't be just disestablish the CofE, and be rid of it?
Absolutely not, it ensures Catholics and Evangelicals are both in our national church. It also ensures weddings and funerals for all parishioners who want them. Pleased to see most MPs at least voted to keep the Bishops in the Lords despite Labour voting to remove the remaining hereditary peers
But why should we havea national church at all? And why us it important that specifically those other two religions are included in it? And I think people have the right to get married or buried whether or not there are bishops in the HoL, or indeed whether the CoE exists at all.
Because it ensures all branches of Christianity are represented in it and because it annoys secular left liberal atheists like you which is an even better reason.
Of course if it was not the established Church C of E churches would start to refuse weddings and funerals to those who live in their area unless they regularly attend church as Catholic priests do for instance and rightly so
There are other places to get married than a church.
On your point 1a: you are arguing for what the thing should be like in response to my argument that the thing should not exist at all; and on your point 1b: I don't think I've ever been called 'left liberal' before!
And buried but if you want a Church wedding only or funeral the C of E being established church is the only reason you get that as of right and that is of course a pivotal reason for its existence.
Of course you are a left liberal, also precisely the type of person US voters voted Trump for purely to annoy the likes of you.
In the culture wars the likes of you are everything conservatives and rightwingers despise
I'm struggling to think what in my 19 years of posting here might have led you to classify me as 'left liberal'. Unless this is your rather dry humour poking through!
Come on cookie, you're just a closeted woke leftie liberal. We all know it, stop pretending (I do think you're pretty liberal for what it's worth)
That said, I'd be intrigued to see a list of posters (plural may be unjustified!) whom hyufd does not consider to be left liberal, remembering that he is, I think the only True Conservative in the village forum (BigG for example defintely does not cut it, I believe)
I am not a pure and true [right wing] conservative and betrayed the party by voting for Blair but to be fair I have never voted Plaid unlike @HYUFD
Heretic.
Please step this way to your involuntary cremation. In the interests of recycling we are using this location
Damn. I check in less frequently, but given the return of Cyclefree I need to restore my previous habit. She is a real asset to this site.
I'm at work and just checking in so will likely miss the chance to comment at length except to say in true David Cameron/Gordon Brown style - I agree with Cyclefree.
That is so kind of you. Thank you and to others who have been similarly kind.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 NEW: Downing Street confirms council tax rises will be capped at 5% again next year - roughly three times the rate of inflation. Paves the way for £110 increase on an average Band D bill
That's a tax on working people. Before we get to an mayoral precept. Luckily our council has just announced it's latest £10m deficit to it's staff.
That will be popular.
Labour will be hoping that voters will blame local councils in the same way they're hoping that voters will blame their employers when there's pay freezes. It's not going to work, already I've noticed that non-political people I know are worried about the budget. My sister said yesterday that she didn't know how the government think they can put taxes for business up by such a huge number without job losses and price rises.
It's like their "black hole" nonsense.
Doesn't work because everyone knows Labour wanted to put up taxes anyway.
That's your viewpoint.
My viewpoint is that the Employee NI cuts (especially the April ones) were not justified and a sensible party would have kept themselves in a position where they could have reversed them...
Edit and the election was in July because the public sector pay increases (all of which were just the recommended figures that should have been obvious for months) were no longer affordable due to the April NI cuts...
The government was under no obligation to accept the recommended figures and, indeed, past ones have not. Tax cuts are affordable from a growing economy and, indeed, didn't even offset the fiscal drag tax rises that had already been baked in.
The large increases in public sector pay and public spending were a choice.
Not really - even up here at Treasury North they are finding recruitment difficult because the pay doesn't reflect the local market rate..
Teachers likewise are leaving to earn more elsewhere and nurses are heading for agency work to the extent that the NHS are trying to solve the issue by banning the use of agencies...
Nah. You are looking to justify the government's policy but it was still a choice.
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
The public sector pension seems to be the only thing people ever talk about.
I'm sure Casino's pension is better than most public sector workers.
Such horseshit. My employer puts in just 6%. Fuck all. And that's only if I match it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
There is a narrow band of public sector roles in the regions (e.g. Newcastle and particularly NI) where pay is very favourable vs the market. But that’s a policy choice made by successive Governments to transfer wealth.
In general, public sector salaries are at least 20-25% less than private sector ones, representing the real value of the pension. For more senior roles (top few thousand) they are substantially lower than the private sector comparison, and rely on incumbents being part public spirited and part in search of extra job security.
Anyone wittering on about public sector pensions being too generous is, for the most part, talking utter bollocks and hasn’t noticed that the real issue is that we don’t pay enough for critical, skills roles in the public sector.
The most stupid commentators on this compare average public and private sector pay, and conveniently forget that the lowest paid jobs all go contracted out is it’s an apples/oranges comparison.
Comments
All other voters though can and will swing in terms of where they vote
Even if Chesterton's Fence is there for a bad reason, it's still there for a reason.
Suffering.
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/153847517#/?channel=RES_BUY
And what no one ever talks about is the very good public sector pension package which absolutely no one in the private sector gets.
If you factor in that, and the other benefits, the package is very competitive.
Pompey got them to invent a new job - sole Consul - to avoid the opprobrium the office of Dictator had already acquired.
*Not actually a dictator, just Consul lots.
If you become incapacitated and you do not have a LPOA you are leaving a total fucking mess for your relatives and the need for a court order process. You may find there are issues with your care or finances that cannot be sorted quickly because there is no attorney. If you are very incapacity you may of course have no idea, but your loved ones will.
Liability is a list of people associated with the property, starting with I think the types of occupier. It is defined in the relevant section of the relevant Act.
(Update. Went and checked. The hierarchy of liability is from the top down.
A freehold owner/occupier living in the property
A leasehold owner/occupier living in the property
A tenant living in the property
A person living in the property who is a licensee (not a tenant, but has permission to stay there)
Any person living in the property (this includes people living in the property with or without permission of the owner)
An owner of the property, where the property is unoccupied.
This is one of those highly obscure technical things an LL needs to know where to find out about at the back of the mind.)
Calling it a tax on working people is a category error, as this does not define it. We could also call VAT a tax on working people, but that is also a category error.
But then I’ve always thought civil servants and politicians were underpaid.
Of the field House built on.
She was buried somewhere around those parts.
If state organisations can't recruit the quality or quantity of staff they want, the totality of the package isn't good enough compared to the skills and effort the jobs require. And at the moment, they can't.
If you want to argue that everyone is misjudging the value of the pension, fine. But the market is right, even when it's wrong.
Somewhere at the BBC, a VFX editor painstakingly removes the last shot of Huw Edwards from the Coronation coverage, checks the news, sighs, scrolls back looking for the Archbishop of Canterbury.
I'd be happy enough for a timetabled process to be started now with the aim of creating a law to be voted on in, say, three years time.
Fox News host picked by Trump for defence secretary
Oh, yes, because TV presenting is a great training to be a defence secretary...
I have 2 default credit cards -
A Lloyds World Elite - which gives me lounge access and 1% cashback - it also has a fee that the 1% cashback more than covers. Ironically the card charges for overseas use is insane.
A Halifax Clarity which is used for all non sterling transactions as there are no foreign currency charges at all.
Bill Kristol
@BillKristol
·
41m
Well, this question of mine from earlier this morning has already been answered.
“I’m confident there’s zero chance incoming Armed Services chair Sen. Roger Wicker would think Hegseth an appropriate, or even a defensible, selection…Will he say publicly what he knows privately?”
Manu Raju
@mkraju
The top R on Senate Armed Services, Roger Wicker, said he doesn’t have any concerns about Fox News host Pete Hegseth’s qualifications to run the Department of Defense.
“No, I don't have concerns. I'm delighted at the prospect of working with,” Wicker said, per
@tedbarrettcnn
https://x.com/BillKristol
Cushty.
£35 + postage - and I know someone who can put it up....
Dealer's choice.
1) Chase for a debit card (seems to be the best option) use it to get cash out.
2) Halifax Clarity as a backup card - use it for purchases and only at a cash point as the very last resort. As Carnforth says if you do use it to take money out from a cash point pay that money off the credit card immediately to avoid interest.
But credit cards are great when you are abroad because it means any tricks played are not touching the money in your current account..
You could probably get train drivers to do the job for £30-40k in an open market - and loads of people apply for them. The reason they get £55-70k and have strict shifts - every time your train is delayed due to a "driver is not available" can be down to this - is down to Trade Unions. Same for why four different vans from Network Rail engineeeing every time there's a bridge inspection- each trade must have its own van from its own sector, and this makes maintenance slow and expensive.
Now, you might say good for Trade Unions. But the reason the railways run in almost permanent deficit that must be subsided by the taxpayer (i.e. us), and are very expensive to run, maintain, and expand, is down to things like that.
Staffing is most of the cost. And it's not a market led one.
Remember the cost of the driver is usually less than the ticket price of the first two people sat in first class...
The market is not a true one. Railways are highly regulated top to toe.
Which is why all the franchises now have very different employment terms compared to the 1980s...
Hunt would probably have fiddled with tax threshold freezes, maybe tweaked CG tax rates a bit to balance, and otherwise left things as they are. Incl. fuel.h
The argument would be that public sector spending could then increase as debt came down, and the economy grew later in the parliament.
"Pile the bodies high" was satire at its finest. Er, wasn't it?
NEW THREAD
Literal cut and paste and a bit of painting by hand on large negative....
That'll become a lot harder to do at a late stage if assisted dying is legalised, a lot more at stake for your family solicitor.
Good thing that Dinsdale must be feeling happy. Otherwise Norman might be 800 yards long.
I put it down to age
https://x.com/thevivafrei/status/1856680843550274012
Maybe it's not the brilliant package at all, otherwise market forces would keep the jobs filled.
https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/sectors
A friend of mine has just made a career switch to become one.
Even then that seems a very low number and worth digging into to see how they've calculated it.
I'm sick and tired of cosseted public sector workers crying woe is me over their amazing packages.
Slash and burn them.
In general, public sector salaries are at least 20-25% less than private sector ones, representing the real value of the pension. For more senior roles (top few thousand) they are substantially lower than the private sector comparison, and rely on incumbents being part public spirited and part in search of extra job security.
Anyone wittering on about public sector pensions being too generous is, for the most part, talking utter bollocks and hasn’t noticed that the real issue is that we don’t pay enough for critical, skills roles in the public sector.
The most stupid commentators on this compare average public and private sector pay, and conveniently forget that the lowest paid jobs all go contracted out is it’s an apples/oranges comparison.