66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
It is one of those subjects so complex that I really don't know what my view is, which for someone as normally opinionated as me is somewhat disturbing!
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Why? He is not head of government, a trade war between the US and Canadian governments is not for the King to get involved with
Yes but a crazy president in an adjacent jurisdiction laying territorial claim (51st state bollocks) is something he should comment on and would probably like to, though I suspect Kier from HR maybe preventing him.
No he shouldn’t, the whole point of the King is he is ceremonial and not a politician and doesn’t get involved in politics or foreign affairs. Only if Canada actually was invaded by the US would he get involved but by then we, Canada and probably France in support of Quebec would be at war with Trump for the half an hour before his cabinet removed him and replaced him with Vance who declared a ceasefire
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
At one stage of my life I employed someone who, as he approached 65, became less and less good at his job. Not bad enough to sack, but bad enough to have to keep an eye on. When he reached 65 he more or less demanded to stay on full time and I made it clear I expected him to retire. We reached a compromise with him working half-time; he'd been with the firm (a small family one) for some time but then he reached a point where even he thought he'd have to stop. Much to my relief.
⚠️ BREAKING NEWS ⚠️ President Donald Trump is trying to make YORKSHIRE the 51st state! 🇺🇲
If the offer is accepted Trump will sign the following executive orders to get them in motion;
- BUILD A WALL on the Yorkshire/Lancashire border 🧱
- Sean Bean to be Governor
- Immediately deport all southerners ⬇️
- A portion of fish & chips to be capped at £5
- Flat cap wearers and Whippet owners to receive favourable tax cuts
- PG Tips and Typhoo will be hit with a 100% tariff
- Open up the coal mines to become energy independent ⚡️
- 'God's Own County' to be replaced with 'God's Own State'.
Let’s Make Yorkshire Great Again!
I commute in to Yorkshire from Nottinghamshire. Guess there goes my right to work in Yorkshire.
How will Killamarsh (and NE Derbyshire/Aston) be handled out of interest ? Checks at the border ? Papers needing to be shown at J34 and 33 of the M1 ? A57 blockade ?
Why? He is not head of government, a trade war between the US and Canadian governments is not for the King to get involved with
Yes but a crazy president in an adjacent jurisdiction laying territorial claim (51st state bollocks) is something he should comment on and would probably like to, though I suspect Kier from HR maybe preventing him.
No he shouldn’t, the whole point of the King is he is ceremonial and not a politician and doesn’t get involved in politics or foreign affairs. Only if Canada actually was invaded by the US would he get involved but by then we, Canada and probably France in support of Quebec would be at war with Trump for the half an hour before his cabinet removed him and replaced him with Vance who declared a ceasefire
You think Trump's cabinet would (?could) replace him, even in those circumstances?
OK given that it's a lazy, sunny Monday afternoon and I am just waiting for gin o'clock with a mate
Here's the OFFICIAL LEON LIST of the top ten THINGS to see in ALL THE WORLD
1. Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler 2. The City of London 3. Angkor Wat 4. Paris 5. Venice 6. The Antartcic Peninsula 7. The Old City of Jerusalem and the abutting Valley of the Shadow of Death 8. The National Parks of south Utah 9. Kyoto 10. The Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea of North Russia
Mainly human artefacts, scenery in 6 and 8, but where's the natural fauna and flora (that's disappearing at a much faster rate)?
At the moment a lot of Democrat voters are pissed off with the Democrat party because they screwed up so badly allowing Trump to win. A feeling I share.
If the figures haven't changed in 6 months then they are in trouble.
I think that the Democrats are an institution. The people leading them, less so.
Given that Trump is making a spectacular mess, I get the impression that people are standing back, rather than wasting time trying to (futilely) stop him.
The Dem conference at the weekend looked like a parody of itself written by Republicans. It started with an apology to the First Nations for stealing their land, then went on a festival of wokeness and LGBTQIA++ that doubled down on all the reasons they lost the election in the first place.
I mean, you can’t complain that politicians do not have principles then also complain when they don’t throw away their principles at the first sign of electoral failure.
The Dems need to find leaders who look comfortable in the company of ordinary working people and talk about what they care about. Bill Clinton and Joe Biden had that, and won. Hillary and Kamala not at all. Unless they recognise that reality the Dems are done for.
(Barack Obama truly was a special case - a one-off in his ability to communicate at a different level - like JFK. So not a useful template.)
Not entirely true, the next US election will almost certainly be decided on the economy and the impact of Trump’s tariffs.
Even John Kerry would have won the 2008 presidential election for instance despite his defeat in 2004 after the crash, Obama just made it a landslide with record black turnout
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
At one stage of my life I employed someone who, as he approached 65, became less and less good at his job. Not bad enough to sack, but bad enough to have to keep an eye on. When he reached 65 he more or less demanded to stay on full time and I made it clear I expected him to retire. We reached a compromise with him working half-time; he'd been with the firm (a small family one) for some time but then he reached a point where even he thought he'd have to stop. Much to my relief.
There will always be cases like that tho. I have had employees of 30 who decline for some external reason. I also have had employees over 60 who are amazing because a) they have so much more experience and b) who like to work, not so much for the money, but because it is stimulating.
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost 2016 Remain voters to Labour and the LDs and hardcore 2016 Leave voters to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft 2016 Leave voters, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Why? He is not head of government, a trade war between the US and Canadian governments is not for the King to get involved with
Yes but a crazy president in an adjacent jurisdiction laying territorial claim (51st state bollocks) is something he should comment on and would probably like to, though I suspect Kier from HR maybe preventing him.
No he shouldn’t, the whole point of the King is he is ceremonial and not a politician and doesn’t get involved in politics or foreign affairs. Only if Canada actually was invaded by the US would he get involved but by then we, Canada and probably France in support of Quebec would be at war with Trump for the half an hour before his cabinet removed him and replaced him with Vance who declared a ceasefire
Sorry, I forgot you are a "literal" as John Cleese would classify you. I was being a little tongue in cheek.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
How much of that issue though is retirement due to lack of options? For example I turn 58 this year....finding another job should I get laid off doing what I currently do is going to be a damn sight harder than it was when I was in my forties.
Many older people find themselves effectively being managed out of the workplace and find their opportunities for new employment heavily curtailed. Partly due in many jobs as over the hill/ not up to learning new stuff. Partly due to worries about their likely health and fitness...will they take more time off sick than a younger worker. Partly due to cost, an older person is more likely to be on a better salary than a new starter fresh from uni.
It is all well and good suggesting people work longer but for many that option is likely to not be available.
Youngsters should be given the opportunity to understand the world of work and to gain from the few years they will be in it, before AI takes their jobs.
My son couldn't understand why some of his younger staff won't adopt AI until it was pointed out they were training their replacements. Now that penny has dropped he has a plan to move to Tuscany and open a wellness resort.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost Remainers to Labour and the LDs and hardcore Leavers to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft Leavers, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Your analysis is typically simplistic, but also informative of the general standard of understanding held by the average Conservative activist since the party was largely culled of intelligent people by your populist hero Boris Bozo Johnson.
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost 2016 Remain voters to Labour and the LDs and hardcore 2016 Leave voters to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft 2016 Leave voters, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Worse than that, the Conservative party can't really move to a soft leave policy because of the gravitational effect of having the Faragists on their hard side.
Heck, it's hard enough for Labour and the LibDems, and they have support bases who would be much keener to get much much closer to Europe.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
Agreed. I do not like this particular bill, but having watched people die slowly, distressed and demented, I would like to see better palliative care, effective pain relief and assisted dying. Prolonging someone's death is not the same as prolonging their life.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
Why? He is not head of government, a trade war between the US and Canadian governments is not for the King to get involved with
Yes but a crazy president in an adjacent jurisdiction laying territorial claim (51st state bollocks) is something he should comment on and would probably like to, though I suspect Kier from HR maybe preventing him.
No he shouldn’t, the whole point of the King is he is ceremonial and not a politician and doesn’t get involved in politics or foreign affairs. Only if Canada actually was invaded by the US would he get involved but by then we, Canada and probably France in support of Quebec would be at war with Trump for the half an hour before his cabinet removed him and replaced him with Vance who declared a ceasefire
You think Trump's cabinet would (?could) replace him, even in those circumstances?
I have heard of an illness that sometimes affects elderly people, which results in them acting as utter tyrants. Horrible enough if the person's sphere of influence is only family, but if something like that has happened to Mr Trump it would be appalling.
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost Remainers to Labour and the LDs and hardcore Leavers to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft Leavers, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Your analysis is typically simplistic, but also informative of the general standard of understanding held by the average Conservative activist since the party was largely culled of intelligent people by your populist hero Boris Bozo Johnson.
Quite a few people will leave the register and quite a few join before the next election.
You have made your point ad infinitum, but repeating it almost daily does not change the fact we are out of the EU for better or worse and nobody is proposing re-joining including Ed Davey who affirmed yesterday a customs union was his preferred choice
Indeed the EU today is not the EU we left and is seriously divided across various member states with diversion of views on Putin and immigration
The best we should seek is a more cooperative relationship
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Congratulations! Let people work or retire when they see fit. Nobody has a duty to work if they don't want to and can support themselves. Those who are opposed to the idea of people choosing not to work until they drop should focus their energy on making work more attractive instead of hectoring those who'd rather do something other than slaving for the man.
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost Remainers to Labour and the LDs and hardcore Leavers to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft Leavers, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Your analysis is typically simplistic, but also informative of the general standard of understanding held by the average Conservative activist since the party was largely culled of intelligent people by your populist hero Boris Bozo Johnson.
It's simplistic, but (physicist hat on), is it usefully simplistic? As a description of what has happened, it's probably accurate enough.
What it doesn't help with is saying what Kemi B should do about it.
You have made your point ad infinitum, but repeating it almost daily does not change the fact we are out of the EU for better or worse and nobody is proposing re-joining including Ed Davey who affirmed yesterday a customs union was his preferred choice
Indeed the EU today is not the EU we left and is seriously divided across various member states with diversion of views on Putin and immigration
The best we should seek is a more cooperative relationship
The shithead leavers didn't just lay down and give up after Maastricht or Lisbon. We won't either.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
I would encourage you to find work, possibly part time that suits your other aspirations. Anecdotally I have seen a couple of people of my acquaintance decline significantly after early retirement. There is a body of evidence that suggests not working for any reason is deleterious to mental health. I hope that won't happen to you.
In terms of your question, I would recommend a number of things that government could do, though you might not like them. Firstly I would disincentivise early retirement through the tax system and encourage significant tax breaks for individuals and employers to employ older workers. The pension schemes for public sector workers are obscene and require reform as they are inequitable. The latter will not happen as the politicians and civil servants benefit.
Additional to all this could be a good discussion along the lines in the article. I sincerely believe that our country (and others) have become obsessed with retirement, when it is not in society's greater interest. There are better and more affordable solutions than pensioning people off who are capable of working.
Sky business report referring to Trump’s comments last night on applying tariffs on the EU and UK said it is likely UK will avoid the tariffs as we are not in the EU
Is this a Brexit benefit if we avoid Trump’s tariffs?
Hardly. It’s a signal we don’t matter.
Tarriffs: a sign Brexit is a disaster
No tarriffs: a signal we don't matter
Tarrifs: a sign Trump is a disaster
Should there be a deal and a truce on how to spell the word that means import tax?
PB candidates appear to be:
tarriff tarrif tariff tarif.
I suggest the French should be permitted to use 'tarif' out of respect for custom and use, but for the rest of us maybe 'tariff' is best?
The origin of our word is apparently a bit odd, via Persian, Arabic, Italian and French.
Sky business report referring to Trump’s comments last night on applying tariffs on the EU and UK said it is likely UK will avoid the tariffs as we are not in the EU
Is this a Brexit benefit if we avoid Trump’s tariffs?
Hardly. It’s a signal we don’t matter.
Tarriffs: a sign Brexit is a disaster
No tarriffs: a signal we don't matter
Tarrifs: a sign Trump is a disaster
Should there be a deal and a truce on how to spell the word that means import tax?
PB candidates appear to be:
tarriff tarrif tariff tarif.
I suggest the French should be permitted to use 'tarif' out of respect for custom and use, but for the rest of us maybe 'tariff' is best?
The origin of our word is apparently a bit odd, via Persian, Arabic, Italian and French.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
Why? He is not head of government, a trade war between the US and Canadian governments is not for the King to get involved with
Yes but a crazy president in an adjacent jurisdiction laying territorial claim (51st state bollocks) is something he should comment on and would probably like to, though I suspect Kier from HR maybe preventing him.
No he shouldn’t, the whole point of the King is he is ceremonial and not a politician and doesn’t get involved in politics or foreign affairs. Only if Canada actually was invaded by the US would he get involved but by then we, Canada and probably France in support of Quebec would be at war with Trump for the half an hour before his cabinet removed him and replaced him with Vance who declared a ceasefire
You think Trump's cabinet would (?could) replace him, even in those circumstances?
Yes there are limits and Trump going to war with Canada would be it, something he has no mandate for and which the vast majority of Americans would oppose as would the military who would also demand his removal
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Congratulations! Let people work or retire when they see fit. Nobody has a duty to work if they don't want to and can support themselves. Those who are opposed to the idea of people choosing not to work until they drop should focus their energy on making work more attractive instead of hectoring those who'd rather do something other than slaving for the man.
I dream, nay, fantasise about being able to afford to give up work. I do have some resources, and am therefore utterly determined at least to avoid having to slog until state pension age (and feel very sorry for people who don't have that option.) I've been told during my most recent visit to the GP that I'm in better than average shape, but even so my powers feel like they're on the wane. The notion of working full-time for another twenty years (or likely twenty-five - the Government is almost bound to start moving the state pension age again before I get to it - fills me with undiluted horror.
Depends what you’re up to. Sightseeing don’t go to Berlin. Go to Vienna at Christmas. If you want a good quirky night out Berlin can be a lot of fun. A young city.
Depends on what you consider sightseeing. Walking down the Schönhauser Allee or across the Moltke Bridge and imagining the Sovitet tanks and troops fighting metre-by-meter into the centre qualifies in my book, but then I'm a bit of a military history fan.
Or bathetically, that back court off Kantstraße where Isherwood ‘might’ have experienced fleshly pleasures.
OK given that it's a lazy, sunny Monday afternoon and I am just waiting for gin o'clock with a mate
Here's the OFFICIAL LEON LIST of the top ten THINGS to see in ALL THE WORLD
1. Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler 2. The City of London 3. Angkor Wat 4. Paris 5. Venice 6. The Antartcic Peninsula 7. The Old City of Jerusalem and the abutting Valley of the Shadow of Death 8. The National Parks of south Utah 9. Kyoto 10. The Solovetsky Islands in the White Sea of North Russia
Outside of London, Paris and Venice I haven't seen any of those.
Out of places I've been to, I'd probably put Rome, Annapurna base camp and the Galapagos Islands above all 3 of those.
Incredibly obvious, but the Grand Canyon just has to be seen.
Also (though off the list as now a war zone) Sana'a in Yemen.
The Sahara (there's lots of it to choose from!). If you can't manage that, then Wadi Rum in Jordan.
Saif-ul-Malook Lake, northern Pakistan. Surrounded by the Himalyas - K2 is "over there..."
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the Bill. That is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from Australia - all of them pro, one of them sponsored by Dignity in Dying, a fact she omitted to tell the Committee despite it revealing an obvious conflict of interest, a fact of which the Committee should have been made aware, especially as she was described as "independent".
3. Why a witness from the US, a doctor who said in his evidence that families who prevented a loved one from committing suicide should be prosecuted. Prosecuted? His evidence was described by Leadbetter as "incredibly helpful". Tell the many families affected by suicide or attempted suicide, including mine, that we should be prosecuted for trying to help our children. Let's have an opinion poll on that. Remember this Bill gives doctors who misbehave in relation to AD immunity from civil liability for claims by distressed families.
4. Why so much discussion amongst witnesses about being a burden as a reason for AD? The Bill does not make that a reason for AD so it is curious that so many of the pro-witnesses insisted on discussing this. Is this because that is the real intended destination and not just AD for the perminally I'll at the end of life?
Are we really as a society going to refuse help to those who are a burden and tell them to die instead? Is that the sort of society we want to be? Remember that each and every one of us is a burden at some point in our life: when we are babies, children, when we are unemployed or not earning a high sum or not working for other reasons, when we are ill or dependant on others, or old, or disabled (permanently or temporarily) or unhappy. There is not one person in this world who is not at some time a burden on others or has someone who is a burden on us - and that is not a bad thing. It means that someone cares about us and that we have someone to care for. It is the essence of what it means to be human.
5. Why no evidence from the experts in Suicide Prevention in this country and how our efforts to reduce suicide will interact with this law?
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the Bill. That is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from Australia - all of them pro, one of them sponsored by Dignity in Dying, a fact she omitted to tell the Committee despite it revealing an obvious conflict of interest, a fact of which the Committee should have been made aware, especially as she was described as "independent".
3. Why a witness from the US, a doctor who said in his evidence that families who prevented a loved one from committing suicide should be prosecuted. Prosecuted? His evidence was described by Leadbetter as "incredibly helpful". Tell the many families affected by suicide or attempted suicide, including mine, that we should be prosecuted for trying to help our children. Let's have an opinion poll on that. Remember this Bill gives doctors who misbehave in relation to AD immunity from civil liability for claims by distressed families.
4. Why so much discussion amongst witnesses about being a burden as a reason for AD? The Bill does not make that a reason for AD so it is curious that so many of the pro-witnesses insisted on discussing this. Is this because that is the real intended destination and not just AD for the perminally I'll at the end of life?
Are we really as a society going to refuse help to those who are a burden and tell them to die instead? Is that the sort of society we want to be? Remember that each and every one of us is a burden at some point in our life: when we are babies, children, when we are unemployed or not earning a high sum or not working for other reasons, when we are ill or dependant on others, or old, or disabled (permanently or temporarily) or unhappy. There is not one person in this world who is not at some time a burden on others or has someone who is a burden on us - and that is not a bad thing. It means that someone cares about us and that we have someone to care for. It is the essence of what it means to be human.
5. Why no evidence from the experts in Suicide Prevention in this country and how our efforts to reduce suicide will interact with this law?
TBC
6. Why was all the written evidence not published by the deadline by which any MP could table an amendment to the Bill, thus inhibiting their ability to do so?
7. Why did one of the pro-witnesses dismiss the death of 60+ women with anorexia (a condition which can be reversed) under AD elsewhere asonly one or two and, therefore, acceptable collateral damage?
This view has been best articulated by Henry Marsh, a retired neurosurgeon who has spoken on behalf of euthanasia, who has said this: "Even if a few grannies get bullied into assisted dying, isn't that a price worth paying for all those who could die with dignity?"
No. It isn't. It really isn't. We do not accept this reasoning for capital punishment. Why is it acceptable for this? How easily he dismisses the life of older women killed wrongfully. They are of course not as important as older men like him who can casually dismiss their lives, their dignity and their families' feelings so easily. Not much difference between him and Dr Shipman really. And there are some even uglier echoes.
He speaks with the arrogance of someone who thinks that bullying won't affect him or those he loves. Perhaps he could nominate some of those he loves to be bullied into an early death?
There is much else that has come out of 3 days (3 - I hope you're impressed by the amount of scrutiny) of evidence, much of it raising serious and difficult questions to who h no answer has been given. This is bad law-making.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Starmer is playing Trump pretty well so far. But I suspect we can’t hide under the radar forever, and there will come a crunch point.
There will and it is an extremely dangerous one for Starmer. If he chooses the US over the EU when the time comes, as it will, he will almost certainly face a major Parliamentary rebellion and a challenge to his leadership, which he would probably lose.
Making either choice would be foolish and Starmer needs to stay neutral no matter how difficult
That's not how Trump works. He will force a choice.
Starmer siding with Trump loses his party, siding with the EU his party loses to Reform
No most Labour voters are Remainers again now, most of the red wall seats Labour won are already going to Reform anyway
You’re still fighting the last war, considering everything in terms of remainers and leavers.
Well it is post Brexit reality. Many long time Conservative voters who were Remainers are now LD and many long time Labour and Conservative voters who were hard core Leavers are now Reform
I am a conservative remain voter and remain a conservative
Indeed by your definition you are a conservative voter who also voted remain, so no doubt you now see yourself as a Lib Dem !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I said many NOT all.
However the fact current polls have Labour polling at Foot 1983 levels and the Conservatives still at Sunak 2024 levels is mainly due to some Remainers going LD and hardcore Leavers going Reform
It's not a perfect split, but the way people voted in 2016 has a hefty correlation with their voting intention now;
Conservatives are on 15% with remainers, 31% with leavers Labour are on 37% with remainers, 13% with leavers for Lib Dems, the split is 21-7 Reform are on 8-42
Seems silly to pretend that, for a certain type of long-term Conservative voter, Boris, Brexit and all that followed from them was the kind of deal-breaker that is going to take decades to fade into history.
The problem the Conservatives have as those figures show is they have lost 2016 Remain voters to Labour and the LDs and hardcore 2016 Leave voters to Reform.
So most Conservatives now are soft 2016 Leave voters, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
Worse than that, the Conservative party can't really move to a soft leave policy because of the gravitational effect of having the Faragists on their hard side.
Heck, it's hard enough for Labour and the LibDems, and they have support bases who would be much keener to get much much closer to Europe.
Soft leave in this case includes those who want any sort of trade deal with the EU not just single market or customs union.
Most Reform voters are hard Leavers who would be fine with no trade deal with the EU at all and just trading with them on WTO terms
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
I would encourage you to find work, possibly part time that suits your other aspirations. Anecdotally I have seen a couple of people of my acquaintance decline significantly after early retirement. There is a body of evidence that suggests not working for any reason is deleterious to mental health. I hope that won't happen to you.
In terms of your question, I would recommend a number of things that government could do, though you might not like them. Firstly I would disincentivise early retirement through the tax system and encourage significant tax breaks for individuals and employers to employ older workers. The pension schemes for public sector workers are obscene and require reform as they are inequitable. The latter will not happen as the politicians and civil servants benefit.
Additional to all this could be a good discussion along the lines in the article. I sincerely believe that our country (and others) have become obsessed with retirement, when it is not in society's greater interest. There are better and more affordable solutions than pensioning people off who are capable of working.
People are obsessed with retirement because most work is miserable and they're typically expected to do it full time (except for insecure gig economy slaves whose conditions are infinitely worse.) We might well be better off if pensions started being paid early at a small rate and then went through a series of increments, and people could therefore ease themselves out of work if a lot more acceptable part-time options were available, but that sort of flexibility isn't on offer.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 7m This is also important, because I know for a fact that spurious orders have been going around purporting to come from the president but not, in fact, doing so. Obviously the potential for unaccountable abuses of executive authority are very great.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Do you have an evening TV though?
Surely one's butler changes* one's TV on a schedule, through the day?
In between ironing editions of the Times, of course.
*Not physically changing it, obviously. But supervises the footmen supervising some workmen.
Sky business report referring to Trump’s comments last night on applying tariffs on the EU and UK said it is likely UK will avoid the tariffs as we are not in the EU
Is this a Brexit benefit if we avoid Trump’s tariffs?
Hardly. It’s a signal we don’t matter.
Tarriffs: a sign Brexit is a disaster
No tarriffs: a signal we don't matter
Tarrifs: a sign Trump is a disaster
Should there be a deal and a truce on how to spell the word that means import tax?
PB candidates appear to be:
tarriff tarrif tariff tarif.
I suggest the French should be permitted to use 'tarif' out of respect for custom and use, but for the rest of us maybe 'tariff' is best?
The origin of our word is apparently a bit odd, via Persian, Arabic, Italian and French.
Mainly because I spent a night in the smelliest hotel room I have ever encountered there waiting for winds to subside so the ferry to Tangier would run, and I should like it to be associated with something unpleasant.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
We've known that ever since Trump was elected by a landslide 49.8% to 48.3%.
⚠️ BREAKING NEWS ⚠️ President Donald Trump is trying to make YORKSHIRE the 51st state! 🇺🇲
If the offer is accepted Trump will sign the following executive orders to get them in motion;
- BUILD A WALL on the Yorkshire/Lancashire border 🧱
- Sean Bean to be Governor
- Immediately deport all southerners ⬇️
- A portion of fish & chips to be capped at £5
- Flat cap wearers and Whippet owners to receive favourable tax cuts
- PG Tips and Typhoo will be hit with a 100% tariff
- Open up the coal mines to become energy independent ⚡️
- 'God's Own County' to be replaced with 'God's Own State'.
Let’s Make Yorkshire Great Again!
Death penalty for anybody outside Yorkshire who uses the word "mither"...
What? In Stuart Maconie's "Pies and Prejudice" he cites mither as a very Mancunian word (in a story about a waitress in a new swanky restaurant whom he overheard complaining that the customers were mithering her). Certainly it is an uncontroversial and regular part of my language, both at work and at home. I'll accept that Yorkies can use it too, but it isn't theirs alone.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On most cultural issues and immigration perhaps, though they don’t want to ban abortion and same sex marriage like some Republicans either.
On economics there isn’t strong support for Trump reversing free trade and going full tariffs and protectionism, as the midterms likely show
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Do you have an evening TV though?
Surely one's butler changes* one's TV on a schedule, through the day?
In between ironing editions of the Times, of course.
*Not physically changing it, obviously. But supervises the footmen supervising some workmen.
One has one's people move One between the two in a sedan chair...
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
No.
What has happened is that Americans have divided into 2 tribes who talk past each other. They listen to different new sources and do not recognise each other's basic premises.
EDIT: It's not that we see one party as extreme, so much as the Republicans are Fucked In Da Head, and the Democrats are Fairly Normal For Americans*
Leadbetter said on the radio and during the initial debate this -
"The concept of a slippery slope, I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
This is untrue and she must have known this. It is untrue because laws can be changed. It is also untrue because her own Bill states within it that all sorts of matters will remain to be determined by Ministers without any further Parliamentary debate. She is asking MPs to vote on a law without knowing its details.
A couple of examples. It will be Ministers who will decide what drugs will be used to kill people. MPs won't have any say on this. How are such drugs to be tested to make sure they can actually give the peaceful death people say is possible? Who knows? Interestingly, the Committee did not obtain evidence from Switzerland on this. Why not?
The Bill gives Ministers Henry VIII powers to change any other legislation including, if necessary, the Health Secretary's "duty to protect life" from the 1946 National Health Service Act. (The precise wording is "The duty to improve the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales". That is if this service is to be provided by the NHS. Is it? This too is unclear. Or will it be a private service? All unclear.
There are plenty of other examples. Does Leadbetter even understand what is in her own Bill?
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Do you have an evening TV though?
Surely one's butler changes* one's TV on a schedule, through the day?
In between ironing editions of the Times, of course.
*Not physically changing it, obviously. But supervises the footmen supervising some workmen.
One has one's people move One between the two in a sedan chair...
The problem with that approach is that when sitting in one's favourite chair, one looks up one's own triumphal road to one's own ancestor's triumphal column.
One could build multiple copies of such, but it would be an awful bother for the workmen chaps. Must remember the lower orders....
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Is one of our senior posters going to have to rename his excellent YouTube channel "justbuyapolestar"?
I'd say i'd be quite near the bottom of the list of pb.com Muskophobes. But these days, I'd be as unlikely to buy a Tesla as I would to wear a 'Make America Great Again' baseball cap. The brand in my eyes is now massively tainted. I'd be interested to see equivalent figures from elsewhere in the world as they become available.
Already a 4% swing from Conservative to Liberal on average then after Trudeau resigned and Liberals up to nearly 25% from under 20% before Christmas and Conservatives back under 45% and EKOS has the Liberals over 30% in the latest poll.
Once the polls taken after Trump’s tariffs on Canada and the Liberal government’s retaliation come in the gap likely narrows further
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On most cultural issues and immigration perhaps, though they don’t want to ban abortion and same sex marriage like some Republicans either.
On economics there isn’t strong support for Trump reversing free trade and going full tariffs and protectionism, as the midterms likely show
FPT: For dixiedean: Some 2001 numbers on migration from Gallup: "The list of countries where potential migrants say they would like to move -- if they could -- has generally been the same since Gallup started tracking these data in 2007, with the U.S. topping the list of the most desired destinations every year.
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 7m This is also important, because I know for a fact that spurious orders have been going around purporting to come from the president but not, in fact, doing so. Obviously the potential for unaccountable abuses of executive authority are very great.
Confusion over presidential wishes is really the least of the issues.
Musk has no constitutional status whatsoever, but seems to have taken control of critical (including HR) government data, and has effectively shuttered one department already.
Is one of our senior posters going to have to rename his excellent YouTube channel "justbuyapolestar"?
It’s France - the current star car is the new Renault 5. The fact it’s got a decent range and is about a metre shorter than a Tesla are big plus points
Buying a Tesla is now akin to getting a swastika tattoo, so even in France, where there are quite a lot of far-right nutters, you would expect sales to plummet.
Buying a Tesla is now akin to getting a swastika tattoo, so even in France, where there are quite a lot of far-right nutters, you would expect sales to plummet.
Is one of our senior posters going to have to rename his excellent YouTube channel "justbuyapolestar"?
I'd say i'd be quite near the bottom of the list of pb.com Muskophobes. But these days, I'd be as unlikely to buy a Tesla as I would to wear a 'Make America Great Again' baseball cap. The brand in my eyes is now massively tainted. I'd be interested to see equivalent figures from elsewhere in the world as they become available.
Although I am ambivalent on wokeness and I am definitely a liberal I do find it rather funny, and in fairness I do also feel sorry for all the woke liberals who have bought Teslas and are now stuck with them, now ownership gives out a completely different message than intended.
Buying a Tesla is now akin to getting a swastika tattoo, so even in France, where there are quite a lot of far-right nutters, you would expect sales to plummet.
French far right nutters are nationalistic so they would be buying Renault or Peugeot / Citroen cars.
I actually wonder if 1,141 will look like Tesla’s best month later this year
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
Having anyone you want around you while you commit suicide is not without issues for those around you though, is it? And the act itself can be harder than you might think - hence those who choose the 'hit by a train' option. I know that you think you are fighting this bill on behalf of those who you think may be forced into assisted death, but you come across rather strong on those who would see assisted death as a legitimate release. I have huge issues with the way the bill is being introduced, but I am in favour of the concept. We euthanise sick pets to end their suffering.
Is one of our senior posters going to have to rename his excellent YouTube channel "justbuyapolestar"?
I'd say i'd be quite near the bottom of the list of pb.com Muskophobes. But these days, I'd be as unlikely to buy a Tesla as I would to wear a 'Make America Great Again' baseball cap. The brand in my eyes is now massively tainted. I'd be interested to see equivalent figures from elsewhere in the world as they become available.
Although I am ambivalent on wokeness and I am definitely a liberal I do find it rather funny, and in fairness I do also feel sorry for all the woke liberals who have bought Teslas and are now stuck with them, now ownership gives out a completely different message than intended.
Shades of all the children named Daenerys. Or even Khaleesi.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On most cultural issues and immigration perhaps, though they don’t want to ban abortion and same sex marriage like some Republicans either.
On economics there isn’t strong support for Trump reversing free trade and going full tariffs and protectionism, as the midterms likely show
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social · 7m This is also important, because I know for a fact that spurious orders have been going around purporting to come from the president but not, in fact, doing so. Obviously the potential for unaccountable abuses of executive authority are very great.
Confusion over presidential wishes is really the least of the issues.
Musk has no constitutional status whatsoever, but seems to have taken control of critical (including HR) government data, and has effectively shuttered one department already.
By forcing his way in at the weekend. Full marks for ingenuity and for work ethic, and it may succeed.
But I assume that the grownups may have something to say about this when they arrive for work shortly.
At the moment a lot of Democrat voters are pissed off with the Democrat party because they screwed up so badly allowing Trump to win. A feeling I share.
If the figures haven't changed in 6 months then they are in trouble.
I think that the Democrats are an institution. The people leading them, less so.
Given that Trump is making a spectacular mess, I get the impression that people are standing back, rather than wasting time trying to (futilely) stop him.
The Dem conference at the weekend looked like a parody of itself written by Republicans. It started with an apology to the First Nations for stealing their land, then went on a festival of wokeness and LGBTQIA++ that doubled down on all the reasons they lost the election in the first place.
I mean, you can’t complain that politicians do not have principles then also complain when they don’t throw away their principles at the first sign of electoral failure.
They need to decide if they’re going to spend the next 18 months appealing to the fringes of their activist base, or if they’re going to go out campaigning in the swing States in a way that appeals to ordinary Americans.
The Tories in the UK have the same problem at the moment.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
Buying a Tesla is now akin to getting a swastika tattoo, so even in France, where there are quite a lot of far-right nutters, you would expect sales to plummet.
FPT: For dixiedean: Some 2001 numbers on migration from Gallup: "The list of countries where potential migrants say they would like to move -- if they could -- has generally been the same since Gallup started tracking these data in 2007, with the U.S. topping the list of the most desired destinations every year.
I was in an Assetto Corsa private lobby last night (racing IndyCars on the Charlotte roval, ya boi Dura was looking good for the W until he cooked his right front and ended up P3). The Canadian mod kicked two Americans for being American. Real July 1914 energy.
"Sports fans in Canada booed the American national anthem at pro sports events over the weekend.
"Fans at NHL games in Canada made their voices heard just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump followed through on his threats regarding import tariffs."
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
That's horrifying, but also darkly funny. Under Justin Trudeau, Canada has become Royston Vasey.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
The problem is, when the clipboard minded attempt to interact with reality and morality.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
On most cultural issues and immigration perhaps, though they don’t want to ban abortion and same sex marriage like some Republicans either.
On economics there isn’t strong support for Trump reversing free trade and going full tariffs and protectionism, as the midterms likely show
I followed your link and I'm not sure why it's supposed to convince me that Democrats are extremists:
Health care practitioners who fail to comply with the law would face fines and up to five years in jail or both. House Republicans passed their version of the bill when they retook control in 2023. Democrats have routinely criticized “born-alive” bills as being redundant because killing an infant who was born alive following an attempted abortion is already illegal.
An infant being born alive following an abortion is extremely rare. Between 2003 and 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 instances of an infant being born alive after an attempted termination.
A report from the Minnesota Department of Health found that among the 10,177 abortions performed in the state in 2017, three were reported to have resulted in an infant being born alive, none of whom survived.
“The Republican so-called ‘born-alive’ bill is pernicious as they come,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
“It attacks women’s health care using false narratives and outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that’s already illegal. So much of the hard right’s anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant,” he added.
I think there is a fascinating aspect of that article that supports a belief that I have long held; the idea that encouraging people to retire while they are still more than capable of working is damaging for the economy (and IMO the individuals themselves). By all means, encourage older people to achieve a great work life balance, maybe by working much less hours, but encouraging them to think that it is a life aspiration to do nowt is incredibly dumb.
One way Haldane thinks Reeves could do this is to help older people stay in work for longer. “Ageing is only a problem… if we stick with this model of people rolling into retirement [at a relatively early age],” he said.
“After the age of 50, the rate of employment starts falling rapidly, despite the fact that people are living longer lives than ever.” “Provided we live healthily and productively and we remain skilled, the resolution of this puzzle is to have people remain in the workplace for longer.” “That would deliver a huge benefit to the public purse and to growth. Ageing need not be a problem. It could actually be the opportunity of our lifetimes, if we seize it.” The Government has so far been reluctant to change the existing safety net for pensioners, after a furious backlash to the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance.
From seeing various family members retire - I would recommend tapering off with consultancy/part time working. If the work if appropriate for that and you don't massively hate it.
Indeed, it does depend on someone finding work one finds rewarding in some way. I largely like my work, so I am lucky. It is partly that perspective (and in spite of having a number of hobbies) that makes me think retirement would be ghastly by comparison. Also a number of my hobbies are hideously expensive so they need to be paid for!
I retired at 65 and continued our overseas travel with an expedition to Antartica as our retirement present (it was expensive) followed by several trips to Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, Canada and other 'bucket list' destinations
All went well until I was approaching 80 when I experienced sudden and unexpected health issues that ended international travel
My advice to anyone approaching retirement is not to postpone anything you hope to do and enjoy, just do it
Yes, but my point is that you do not have to fully retire to do stuff like that. I am not knocking people that have done it, just asking whether it is a good policy for the health of the nation generally to pension off people who are probably at the height of their professional knowledge. I hope, health allowing, to continue to work as long as people want to pay me.
There can be health benefits from retiring. I definitely became fitter as I was able to walk 7-days-a-week instead of just 2, with the other 5 sat at a desk. Main thing is not to retire into carpet slippers and day-time TV.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
Ah, you last para is instructive! By the way, I am ostensibly full time but I walk and run 7 days a week. Often I walk at lunchtimes and afternoons. Even FT work does not require one to not look after oneself whatever age. Again, this requires a mindset shift. I think we could encourage a lot of people 60+ to continue in work if conditions are right. Of course there will be some who will do nothing if at all possible, but maybe they are those that would be best to do just that!
I'm 55 and my last day is this week...
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
I would encourage you to find work, possibly part time that suits your other aspirations. Anecdotally I have seen a couple of people of my acquaintance decline significantly after early retirement. There is a body of evidence that suggests not working for any reason is deleterious to mental health. I hope that won't happen to you.
In terms of your question, I would recommend a number of things that government could do, though you might not like them. Firstly I would disincentivise early retirement through the tax system and encourage significant tax breaks for individuals and employers to employ older workers. The pension schemes for public sector workers are obscene and require reform as they are inequitable. The latter will not happen as the politicians and civil servants benefit.
Additional to all this could be a good discussion along the lines in the article. I sincerely believe that our country (and others) have become obsessed with retirement, when it is not in society's greater interest. There are better and more affordable solutions than pensioning people off who are capable of working.
Oh, I have plenty of things to be doing, some voluntary, some not.
I suspect the main issue with giving up formal work is the loss of daily interactions and that's where you have to make the effort. My work interactions have been 99% online for a while so maybe that's less of a loss.
Admittedly the problem with voluntary things can be that being paid to do something kind of proves that it is valued, at least by someone, whereas if you do stuff for free it can be taken for granted.
But sitting at a desk all day does nobody any good.
Comments
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
(All that said, am now working part-time after a spell of full-time "retirement", which works for me. The extra income - because unexpected and unbudgeted for - doubly welcome.)
When he reached 65 he more or less demanded to stay on full time and I made it clear I expected him to retire. We reached a compromise with him working half-time; he'd been with the firm (a small family one) for some time but then he reached a point where even he thought he'd have to stop.
Much to my relief.
BBC News - Snake Pass: Could famous driving road close to cars? - BBC News
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yrnz5wxgko
Even John Kerry would have won the 2008 presidential election for instance despite his defeat in 2004 after the crash, Obama just made it a landslide with record black turnout
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
So most Conservatives now are soft 2016 Leave voters, now that might be near the median voter but is only around 25% of voters overall ie the current Tory voteshare
My son couldn't understand why some of his younger staff won't adopt AI until it was pointed out they were training their replacements. Now that penny has dropped he has a plan to move to Tuscany and open a wellness resort.
It is all very well to say you can exercise and work full time but it isn't always that easy. It is one of the reasons I'm giving up.
There will always be people who earn more than they spend and end up accumulating enough money to retire early. Short of confiscatory behaviour, what should the government do about it?
I won't be watching daytime TV though, as I don't have one...
Heck, it's hard enough for Labour and the LibDems, and they have support bases who would be much keener to get much much closer to Europe.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
I might do the odd paid thing with Mrs Flatlander so technically not the last day of work, but the last day at work, definitely.
Indeed the EU today is not the EU we left and is seriously divided across various member states with diversion of views on Putin and immigration
The best we should seek is a more cooperative relationship
What it doesn't help with is saying what Kemi B should do about it.
In terms of your question, I would recommend a number of things that government could do, though you might not like them. Firstly I would disincentivise early retirement through the tax system and encourage significant tax breaks for individuals and employers to employ older workers. The pension schemes for public sector workers are obscene and require reform as they are inequitable. The latter will not happen as the politicians and civil servants benefit.
Additional to all this could be a good discussion along the lines in the article. I sincerely believe that our country (and others) have become obsessed with retirement, when it is not in society's greater interest. There are better and more affordable solutions than pensioning people off who are capable of working.
PB candidates appear to be:
tarriff
tarrif
tariff
tarif.
I suggest the French should be permitted to use 'tarif' out of respect for custom and use, but for the rest of us maybe 'tariff' is best?
The origin of our word is apparently a bit odd, via Persian, Arabic, Italian and French.
I will accept no other spelling.
Also (though off the list as now a war zone) Sana'a in Yemen.
The Sahara (there's lots of it to choose from!). If you can't manage that, then Wadi Rum in Jordan.
Saif-ul-Malook Lake, northern Pakistan. Surrounded by the Himalyas - K2 is "over there..."
Tesla Sales Plunge 63% in France, the EU’s Second-Biggest EV Market
Manufacturer registered only 1,141 new cars in January
Automaker underperformed overall industry and EV segment
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-02-03/tesla-sales-plunge-63-in-france-the-eu-s-second-biggest-ev-market
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the Bill. That is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from Australia - all of them pro, one of them sponsored by Dignity in Dying, a fact she omitted to tell the Committee despite it revealing an obvious conflict of interest, a fact of which the Committee should have been made aware, especially as she was described as "independent".
3. Why a witness from the US, a doctor who said in his evidence that families who prevented a loved one from committing suicide should be prosecuted. Prosecuted? His evidence was described by Leadbetter as "incredibly helpful". Tell the many families affected by suicide or attempted suicide, including mine, that we should be prosecuted for trying to help our children. Let's have an opinion poll on that. Remember this Bill gives doctors who misbehave in relation to AD immunity from civil liability for claims by distressed families.
4. Why so much discussion amongst witnesses about being a burden as a reason for AD? The Bill does not make that a reason for AD so it is curious that so many of the pro-witnesses insisted on discussing this. Is this because that is the real intended destination and not just AD for the perminally I'll at the end of life?
Are we really as a society going to refuse help to those who are a burden and tell them to die instead? Is that the sort of society we want to be? Remember that each and every one of us is a burden at some point in our life: when we are babies, children, when we are unemployed or not earning a high sum or not working for other reasons, when we are ill or dependant on others, or old, or disabled (permanently or temporarily) or unhappy. There is not one person in this world who is not at some time a burden on others or has someone who is a burden on us - and that is not a bad thing. It means that someone cares about us and that we have someone to care for. It is the essence of what it means to be human.
5. Why no evidence from the experts in Suicide Prevention in this country and how our efforts to reduce suicide will interact with this law?
TBC
6. Why was all the written evidence not published by the deadline by which any MP could table an amendment to the Bill, thus inhibiting their ability to do so?
7. Why did one of the pro-witnesses dismiss the death of 60+ women with anorexia (a condition which can be reversed) under AD elsewhere asonly one or two and, therefore, acceptable collateral damage?
This view has been best articulated by Henry Marsh, a retired neurosurgeon who has spoken on behalf of euthanasia, who has said this:
"Even if a few grannies get bullied into assisted dying, isn't that a price worth paying for all those who could die with dignity?"
No. It isn't. It really isn't. We do not accept this reasoning for capital punishment. Why is it acceptable for this? How easily he dismisses the life of older women killed wrongfully. They are of course not as important as older men like him who can casually dismiss their lives, their dignity and their families' feelings so easily. Not much difference between him and Dr Shipman really. And there are some even uglier echoes.
He speaks with the arrogance of someone who thinks that bullying won't affect him or those he loves. Perhaps he could nominate some of those he loves to be bullied into an early death?
There is much else that has come out of 3 days (3 - I hope you're impressed by the amount of scrutiny) of evidence, much of it raising serious and difficult questions to who h no answer has been given. This is bad law-making.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Most Reform voters are hard Leavers who would be fine with no trade deal with the EU at all and just trading with them on WTO terms
Turns out the Nazi saluter wasn’t happy with their role in ending apartheid.
https://bsky.app/profile/carlbergstrom.com/post/3lhbgd7bytk2a
Shashank Joshi @shashj.bsky.social
·
7m
This is also important, because I know for a fact that spurious orders have been going around purporting to come from the president but not, in fact, doing so. Obviously the potential for unaccountable abuses of executive authority are very great.
https://bsky.app/profile/shashj.bsky.social/post/3lhbjb6o4is26
In between ironing editions of the Times, of course.
*Not physically changing it, obviously. But supervises the footmen supervising some workmen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarifa
Mainly because I spent a night in the smelliest hotel room I have ever encountered there waiting for winds to subside so the ferry to Tangier would run, and I should like it to be associated with something unpleasant.
- address people as Thee and Thou?
- Say By Heck!
- put your thumbs in the armholes of your tweed waistcoat?
Con 43%
Lib 24%
NDP 17%
BQ 8%
Grn 4%
Odds of Con maj >99%
https://338canada.com/federal.htm
On economics there isn’t strong support for Trump reversing free trade and going full tariffs and protectionism, as the midterms likely show
What has happened is that Americans have divided into 2 tribes who talk past each other. They listen to different new sources and do not recognise each other's basic premises.
EDIT: It's not that we see one party as extreme, so much as the Republicans are Fucked In Da Head, and the Democrats are Fairly Normal For Americans*
*no mocking the afflicted, eh!
Leadbetter said on the radio and during the initial debate this -
"The concept of a slippery slope, I will dismiss that, because once this bill is passed... The bill cannot be changed."
This is untrue and she must have known this. It is untrue because laws can be changed. It is also untrue because her own Bill states within it that all sorts of matters will remain to be determined by Ministers without any further Parliamentary debate. She is asking MPs to vote on a law without knowing its details.
A couple of examples. It will be Ministers who will decide what drugs will be used to kill people. MPs won't have any say on this. How are such drugs to be tested to make sure they can actually give the peaceful death people say is possible? Who knows? Interestingly, the Committee did not obtain evidence from Switzerland on this. Why not?
The Bill gives Ministers Henry VIII powers to change any other legislation including, if necessary, the Health Secretary's "duty to protect life" from the 1946 National Health Service Act. (The precise wording is "The duty to improve the physical and mental health of the people of England and Wales". That is if this service is to be provided by the NHS. Is it? This too is unclear. Or will it be a private service? All unclear.
There are plenty of other examples. Does Leadbetter even understand what is in her own Bill?
(One US state has a TFR that high (2.2). Can any of you guess which one it is?)
One could build multiple copies of such, but it would be an awful bother for the workmen chaps. Must remember the lower orders....
Once the polls taken after Trump’s tariffs on Canada and the Liberal government’s retaliation come in the gap likely narrows further
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
"The list of countries where potential migrants say they would like to move -- if they could -- has generally been the same since Gallup started tracking these data in 2007, with the U.S. topping the list of the most desired destinations every year.
This was true in 2021 as well. Just under one in five potential migrants (18%) -- or about 160 million adults worldwide -- named the U.S. as their desired future residence. However, this figure is down from where it was in all years leading up to 2017."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/468218/nearly-900-million-worldwide-wanted-migrate-2021.aspx
At a guess, about 1 billion world wide would now rather be some place else, and about 200 million of them would like to be in the US.
Musk has no constitutional status whatsoever, but seems to have taken control of critical (including HR) government data, and has effectively shuttered one department already.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_fertility_rate
I actually wonder if 1,141 will look like Tesla’s best month later this year
The new acting Undersecretary of State for public diplomacy — State’s top public diplomacy official:
1) not only denies the Uyghur genocide but appears to applaud it
2) says the US should sell out Taiwan to China for concessions in Antarctica
https://x.com/RushDoshi/status/1886237936842092798
I have huge issues with the way the bill is being introduced, but I am in favour of the concept. We euthanise sick pets to end their suffering.
But I assume that the grownups may have something to say about this when they arrive for work shortly.
The Tories in the UK have the same problem at the moment.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/2025/02/02/canadian-sports-fans-boo-national-anthem/78171190007/
"Sports fans in Canada booed the American national anthem at pro sports events over the weekend.
"Fans at NHL games in Canada made their voices heard just hours after U.S. President Donald Trump followed through on his threats regarding import tariffs."
Health care practitioners who fail to comply with the law would face fines and up to five years in jail or both. House Republicans passed their version of the bill when they retook control in 2023. Democrats have routinely criticized “born-alive” bills as being redundant because killing an infant who was born alive following an attempted abortion is already illegal.
An infant being born alive following an abortion is extremely rare. Between 2003 and 2014, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recorded 143 instances of an infant being born alive after an attempted termination.
A report from the Minnesota Department of Health found that among the 10,177 abortions performed in the state in 2017, three were reported to have resulted in an infant being born alive, none of whom survived.
“The Republican so-called ‘born-alive’ bill is pernicious as they come,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said.
“It attacks women’s health care using false narratives and outright fearmongering, and it adds more legal risk for doctors on something that’s already illegal. So much of the hard right’s anti-choice agenda is pushed, frankly, by people who have little or no understanding of what women go through when they are pregnant,” he added.
I suspect the main issue with giving up formal work is the loss of daily interactions and that's where you have to make the effort. My work interactions have been 99% online for a while so maybe that's less of a loss.
Admittedly the problem with voluntary things can be that being paid to do something kind of proves that it is valued, at least by someone, whereas if you do stuff for free it can be taken for granted.
But sitting at a desk all day does nobody any good.