The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
First they came for the librarians And I did nothing...
They refused to speak up.
I just collected a free tree from my library provided by Surrey County Council. I picked a crab apple tree. It is a green project. I think it is a plan to grow your own books and you have to be at the start of the process.
Not sure this is a good use of tax payers money. I'm guessing the only people collecting them are people who would go down to the garden centre to buy them anyway.
The queue was very long.
Perhaps they should be putting money aside to pay for Wokings debt instead of sponging from the taxpayer and needlessly pissing money away ?
Surrey County Council isn't responsible for Woking's debt, and Woking itself isn't big enough ever to repay the debt.
If the Government is serious about unitarisation then it is going to have to pay off Woking's debt itself. It's not just that the council tax payers of Woking itself could spend the rest of time trying to clear it and never succeed; if the Woking debt isn't forgiven then it will be inherited by the successor authority and, therefore, it will immediately become bankrupt. You'd then be saddling the people in the surrounding areas with the unpayable debt too.
As with our old friend the state pension Triple Lock, idiot politicians can't continue to work against the fundamental rules of mathematics indefinitely. At some point, hiking pensions ahead of earnings will have to stop. At some point, Woking will have to be bailed. It's just a matter of how long the Government can get away with can kicking.
By the govt you mean taxpayers up and down the country. Why should taxpayers from poorer parts of the country bail out taxpayers in the wealthy south.
Fuck Woking.
As for the triple lock. Couldn’t agree more and I say that as someone a few years from getting the state pension.
It's not about "fuck Woking" though, it's that the debt is so big it's not going to ever be cleared and there's no way of clearing it. The now Lib Dem council are scrambling to sell off everything and cut every service they are not legally obliged to provide to clear up the previous Tory administration's mess and it is unlikely to make much of a dent. As with a person or company that runs up astronomical debts there comes a point where you have to cut your losses, take the hit and move on.
Fine. Let them. Don’t expect taxpayers up and down the country to have to pay it off. Especially when those of us in poorer areas whose councils have somehow managed through this and could genuinely do with the money for good rather than to pay off debts run up through ineptitude.
Whether one likes it or not, a massive default in local government is going to end up with the UK taxpayer, assuming all other avenues (insurance, default, auditor liability, personal liability, sell offs etc) are exhausted, for a simple reason.
Local government is entirely a creature of statute. It has zero inherent powers. It can only do what statute allows. It is accountable to auditors and to government/parliament. Government has powers to regulate the affairs of local authorities. When one goes completely off the rails not only has the authority failed, the oversight has failed too.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
Voters need to own their mistakes, and I doubt there’s much if any money to be collected from councillors. They could be disbarred or something, but that creates a democratic issue in my opinion .
What's least surprising here is that Lib Dem voters are nothing more than Labour lickspittles. We see it on here all the time where Lib Dems try their hardest to stick up for this shit government despite all of the evidence.
That's because the last government was so crap for so long that I'm willing to give Labour more than 6 months before writing them off.
Certainly longer than that before considering the Tories the better of the two again. Again, considering how poorly (and inconsistently) they managed the economy over 12 years in power. Cancelling large projects that they started (HS2), starting with a promise to cut deficits, then leaving record national debt and cutting headline tax rates while running a large deficit outside of a recession being just two examples.
The PB Reform/Tories can criticise all they want, but they can't erase their own record. I didn't vote Labour but still happy they are in power rather than either the Tories or Reform.
Anyone supporting a party with the word 'liberal' or indeed the word 'democrat' in its name should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for giving succour to an Orwellian Government that cancels elections and attempts to chill free speech.
?
Delayed, not cancelled - as normally happens during reorganisations.
(And happened multiple times under the last Government.)
I'm afraid there's a few people on here who are starting to succumb to Maga/reform/ cults .
Piss off. I support those political groups and individuals who are promoting the ideas and policies that I have always advocated. Don't project your own weak-minded desire to follow a crowd on to others.
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
Note that the latest fashion, in medico-legal circles, includes advocating lesser sentences for under 25s. On the grounds that brain development is not complete.
So they are, apparently, only partially responsible for their actions.
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
I would rather, if the Government is going to mess about with electoral process, that they provided us with a decent, and democratic, electoral system. Failing that, take the ID system to what it was, or give everyone an ID card.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
What makes you say that Harris or Walz were "hyperliberals"?, whatever you mean by that term. They seemed quite mainstream to me. Indeed that was one reason they failed to sufficiently energise their voters.
I suspect I will act as @Andy_JS translator in the same way that I act as @Dura_Ace translator, but here we go...
"Hyper-liberalism" is a term used by[1] (and coined by?) the philosopher John Gray. Gray characterises "liberalism" as a society which recognises subgroups of humanity but neither persecutes nor elevates them, instead merely tolerating them. Like Hope Street which, as any fule kno, has a Protestant Cathedral at one end and a Catholic cathedral at the other.
"Hyper-liberalism" occurs when a society recognises subgroups of humanity *and* elevates and defends them, and recognises the right of the individual to form such groups even if very small. Like liberalism on fast-forward with guns, if you will. The theory provides an intellectual underpinning for woke and unites it with identity politics under an umbrella, in the same way that transhumanism unites trans, suicide, assisted dying, surrogacy and abortion under its umbrella.
Andy contends that hyper-liberalism is dying and can point to the US for proof, where Trump/Musk are killing it with fire. I contend that it isn't dying in the UK and the discussion about trans is simply about whether it should be in the protected groups, not whether protected groups should exist.
I am available to translate for other conflicts, although the eternal @HYUFD/@Big_G_NorthWales war may be beyond even my humble powers
[1] See "The New Leviathans" by John Gray, available now from your bookshop or library
Like a lot of John Gray analyses, it is wonderfully written, and contains a kernel of truth... but I think he has let his rhetoric run away with him.
He is right, I think, that over time a lot of DEI policies DEI morphed into outright racism (i.e. elevating protected groups).
The great irony, in the US, is that there still is a massive problem of actual racism: of near 100% white police departments in towns in the South that are 40% black, and where your chances of being stopped as a driver are something like 20x higher than if you are black than if you are white.
DEI - by contrast - was focused on places like academia and Silicon Valley, where there really wasn't a serious problem with racism.
It was almost an attempt to compensate for the ills suffered by the black populations of Jackson, Mississippi, that DEI engendered racist policies towards whites in wealthy cities.
A similar thing has happened with the transgender issue. Transgender people - whether in the US or the UK - are massively more likely to be the victim of assault, or abuse than regular people.
That is a very real problem.
Access to same sex changing spaces based on self-ID is not a real problem.
Where I think John Gray is quite wrong is that the pendulum has started swinging back on "woke" even before the election this year. Ballot propositions in California pushed Democrats back towards the center, and the next generation of Democrat leaders are much more likely to be Jon Ossoff or Pete Buttigieg than they are to be Gavin Newsom.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What about Birmingham?
What actually needs to happen is a clear delineation of whether local government paper is backed by the Treasury, or not.
The simplest solution is “not”. But this would cause borrowing for LAs to soar.
Birmingham council could have settled the equal pay claim for a fraction of the cost it is now. There is also a massive IT overspend.
The law and application of it is certainly dubious but it is what it is and, again, why should taxpayers up and down the country bail out electors in Brum who voted in the incompetents who brought them to this situation ?
My own council in Durham could do with a billion or two.
Does anyone know if Cummings is involved in the Trump/Musk project or Project25?
He would push the concept of OODA as a way of getting ahead of your political advisories. The flurry of EO by Trump which presumably he's being fed by someone, has all the look of OODA. While everyone is debating the meaning of each EO, they are putting a lot of distance between themselves and the Dems/Libs/Whatever you want to call them.
Question is whether there is an end point where they will stop and consolidate - or whether, failing any legitimate means to stop them, J6 becomes May6, June6, July6 etc. The first time the army or National Guard is deployed may be the end of their beginning.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
OK for the office based.
Not sure that 70 year olds working on building sites will work well.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
Well:
Firstly, does it require retroactive legislation? If it does, you can't do it.
Secondly, do you surcharge all councillors, or just the ones who voted for stupidity? What about ones who voted for some stupid shit, but not others, or who were only councillors later after the shit had hit the fan, but did nothing to pull the plug?
Thirdly, even if you could extract £100,000 from every responsible councillor, you would have perhaps £3m out of a £300m hole.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
If we started bankrupting politicians for making financial misjudgements then there would be no politicians. Nobody would dare do the job, and somebody has to at least try to provide a government.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
Well:
Firstly, does it require retroactive legislation? If it does, you can't do it.
Secondly, do you surcharge all councillors, or just the ones who voted for stupidity? What about ones who voted for some stupid shit, but not others, or who were only councillors later after the shit had hit the fan, but did nothing to pull the plug?
Thirdly, even if you could extract £100,000 from every responsible councillor, you would have perhaps £3m out of a £300m hole.
Fourth, how do you attribute blame between officers and councillors?
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
I would rather, if the Government is going to mess about with electoral process, that they provided us with a decent, and democratic, electoral system. Failing that, take the ID system to what it was, or give everyone an ID card.
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
I would rather, if the Government is going to mess about with electoral process, that they provided us with a decent, and democratic, electoral system. Failing that, take the ID system to what it was, or give everyone an ID card.
Do you have a preference to Replace FPTP.
STV, with multi-member constituencies. I accept there are a few 'hard cases', such as Orkney & Shetland, the Western Isles,and Ynys Mon, but they could be dealt with. Anyway Ynys Mon could be part of a Gogledd .... North Wales..... constituency.
The French Anthem is magnificent. Ours is a dirge.
France are a republic, we are a monarchy, that's why ours is a dirge.
Republic now.
No, the King is far more popular here than President Macron is in France. Constitutional monarchies work and having just watched Dr Zhivago replacing even near absolute monarchies has often ended up worse (as Russia discovered with Lenin and Stalin).
I do agree though England should have its anthem as Jerusalem when it plays sporting fixtures as it does for the Commonwealth games and England Test cricket matches, especially given the other home nations in Britain and Australia, Canada and NZ also have the King as head of state not just England but their own anthems for sporting fixtures.
GSTK should be reserved for UK teams at the Olympic Games and GB teams in Davis cup tennis or rugby league or UK F1 winners of grand prix. Otherwise it should only be played elsewhere at sporting fixtures if a member of the royal family is present after the national anthems
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
Voters need to own their mistakes, and I doubt there’s much if any money to be collected from councillors. They could be disbarred or something, but that creates a democratic issue in my opinion .
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
Note that the latest fashion, in medico-legal circles, includes advocating lesser sentences for under 25s. On the grounds that brain development is not complete.
So they are, apparently, only partially responsible for their actions.
That’s certainly the case when it comes to sentencing under the law under the SNP regime north of the border.
I guess the brain development issue explains why this group supports the Green Party more than any other age demographic.
I don't think it's a good idea but I'm politically relaxed about it for two reasons:
(1) The 2019-2024 parliament shows that such "reforms" can't and don't save you (2) 16-18 years in the mid 2020s aren't voting as they would have done 10-20 years ago, and indeed are shifting Right rapidly
So Labour won't benefit from this.
If they are not legally adult why should they vote. I don’t care especially from how they will vote. More that the law sees them as non adult, immature, so why give them the vote.
I would rather, if the Government is going to mess about with electoral process, that they provided us with a decent, and democratic, electoral system. Failing that, take the ID system to what it was, or give everyone an ID card.
Do you have a preference to Replace FPTP.
STV.
I’d agree with that. I voted against last time as the proposed alternative could be less proportional
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
Hi Nick, hope you’re well. It’s regional,though. There are two,life expectancies. Healthy life expectancy and total life expectancy and where I live the healthy life expectancy.
Should the pension age, in that case, be regional ?
I do think it will move up to 70 in time but I think the triple lock must go ASAP.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
I would go further and also sanction the relevant senior council officers.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
Is is not actually a "pension age" now?
Indeed. A retirement age is discriminatory, and if receiving pension doesn’t prompt someone to leave, you have to wait until they become demonstrably incapable.
The government should impose a £5000 surcharge on every property in Woking, payable on sale.
We should try to avoid the moral hazard of endemic Tory negligence.
What's wrong with surcharging the responsivle councillors? Not that I necessarily think it's an entire solution, but it is needed to encourager les autres. More to the point, I'm puzzled that that doesn't seem to be part of the Woking discussion at the moment - maybe too early?
Voters need to own their mistakes, and I doubt there’s much if any money to be collected from councillors. They could be disbarred or something, but that creates a democratic issue in my opinion .
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
A lot of the stuff in my Cumberland part of the world that generally makes life and communities work nicely - from grandparenting to running all the voluntary institutions of society to looking after individuals with needs of various sorts - falls on the retired from age about 65 onwards. None of this appears in the GDP or productivity figures but I find it hard to imagine life without the skills and time that active retired give to a range of useful things.
They also, to a remarkable extent, keep small businesses of many sorts going just by having time to spend money in them.
To day in my village it was almost exclusively the retired who supported the local school's fund raising event. Younger ones are too busy. I know the feeling.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I fully expect it to go that way. Extending the state retirement age for people still in work will be one of the can kicking measures that comes before some future Government finally scraps the Triple Lock. But God alone knows what other tax rises and spending cuts they'll resort to in the desperate effort to pay for it before they finally throw in the towel.
What's really needed is a realistic attitude to how long retirement can be, coupled with a fundamental revision of what it actually is - the old fashioned cliff edge model needs to go in the dustbin, so that pensions are gradually phased in and people are enabled to go part time as they age - and the immediate junking of the Triple Lock in favour of something more affordable. What we'll actually get is current pensioners continuing to be cosseted, and current workers being expected to keep going full time until they're about 75.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Few things better demonstrate the political ineptitude of the Labour leadership than the decision to slap a huge tax rise on jobs, most of which will end up being redistributed in largesse to the only section of the population that kept backing the Tories.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Yet UK life expectancy has fallen to its lowest level for a decade, 78 for men and 82 for women.
So that would be political suicide to propose a retirement age of 70+
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Few things better demonstrate the political ineptitude of the Labour leadership then the decision to slap a huge tax rise on jobs, most of which will end up being redistributed in largesse to the only section of the population that kept backing the Tories.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
I have consistently opposed the triple lock even though I am 81 and my wife is 85
Re WFP, I doubt the £200 per household [ £300 for over 80s] has any effect on their holiday or cruise plans
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Few things better demonstrate the political ineptitude of the Labour leadership than the decision to slap a huge tax rise on jobs, most of which will end up being redistributed in largesse to the only section of the population that kept backing the Tories.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
Pensioners hate Labour too as they have scrapped the winter fuel allowance for most of them.
Most polls have Labour 4th with pensioners now behind the Tories, Reform and Liberal Democrats
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Yet UK life expectancy has fallen to its lowest level for a decade, 78 for men and 82 for women.
So that would be political suicide to propose a retirement age of 70+
If it's both political suicide to junk the Triple Lock and political suicide to ramp the state pension age then I guess nothing will happen until we disappear into a debt vortex and are forced to do a slash and burn of the state by the bond markets.
In point of fact I still think they'll try jacking up the pension age first. Benefits for existing olds may be sacrosanct, but nobody in power gives a monkeys about the future of anybody aged under 50.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Yet UK life expectancy has fallen to its lowest level for a decade, 78 for men and 82 for women.
So that would be political suicide to propose a retirement age of 70+
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
It seems to be keeping a year ahead of my elder son; every time he gets a year older, so does the retirement age! He's 62 this year, so AToW he's got 5 years to go. I, and he, expect it the age at which he can collect his pension and all the other benefits to be 68 or even 69 before he can actually collect! And he's worked since he was sixteen, except for four years in his twenties when he went to Uni as a mature student. Although he worked every vacation.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
There are many different forms of religious fundamentalism - which is why fundamentalists often hate each other, or even fight. You have made it fairly clear in previous comments that you are a fundamentalist - particularly in your views towards women. You say 'restrict womens' ability to have careers', but I'm fairly sure you've also written about the need for women to stay at home.
As for fundamentalism: here's a definition: "fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts."
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Few things better demonstrate the political ineptitude of the Labour leadership than the decision to slap a huge tax rise on jobs, most of which will end up being redistributed in largesse to the only section of the population that kept backing the Tories.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
Pensioners hate Labour too as they have scrapped the winter fuel allowance for most of them.
Most polls have Labour 4th with pensioners now behind the Tories, Reform and Liberal Democrats
WFA was another useless act of political self harm. They somehow managed to look mean and raise no money at the same time.
If you're going to soak your opponent's core vote for revenue then you should do it properly.
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Few things better demonstrate the political ineptitude of the Labour leadership than the decision to slap a huge tax rise on jobs, most of which will end up being redistributed in largesse to the only section of the population that kept backing the Tories.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
Pensioners hate Labour too as they have scrapped the winter fuel allowance for most of them.
Most polls have Labour 4th with pensioners now behind the Tories, Reform and Liberal Democrats
WFA was another useless act of political self harm. They somehow managed to look mean and raise no money at the same time.
If you're going to soak your opponent's core vote for revenue then you should do it properly.
Indeed, they hit pensioners on £15k income a year worrying how to heat their homes this winter while pensioners with incomes of £50k+ and big private pensions can shrug it off while getting their full triple locked state pension as well
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
There are many different forms of religious fundamentalism - which is why fundamentalists often hate each other, or even fight. You have made it fairly clear in previous comments that you are a fundamentalist - particularly in your views towards women. You say 'restrict womens' ability to have careers', but I'm fairly sure you've also written about the need for women to stay at home.
As for fundamentalism: here's a definition: "fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts."
I said I want to make it easier for women to be mothers and stay at home or only work part time not that I would ban women from having careers
The only effective antidote to populism is a practical demonstration by the existing political establishment that it is able to improve the life circumstances of the less well-off. They must raise the wellbeing and standard of living of workers in the bottom half of the income distribution. That's exactly what Labour is trying to achieve by bolstering the minimum wage and setting ambitious targets for housebuilding, but even if they can get heroic numbers of new dwellings built (and a substantial fraction of those are available at social rates) then I still think they're likely to fail. Any extra money raised through taxes is going to be sucked up by elderly care and pensions whilst the remainder of the state continues to fall apart, the lack of commitment to tackling inflation properly means that the price of basic commodities and especially rents is going to run ahead of wages and, indeed, earned incomes are liable to resume falling in real terms - an accumulation of inflationary pressure and a fresh bout of wage suppression by businesses passing on the cost of the NI hike to their employees.
The Chancellor can bang on about growth til the end of time, but you're never going to get anything more than anaemic expansion out of an economy that's heavily burdened by an ageing population and built by design to funnel what wealth is available upwards and into unproductive forms of investment. The only effective way to bolster the prospects of the poor is, therefore, redistribution of wealth down rather than up through society, and Labour won't do that in any meaningful way. It means all they're left with is the laughable promise of massive economic growth with a negligible probability of actually getting there, coupled with the usual bidding war over who can be nastiest to the usual scapegoat groups, such as asylum seekers and benefit claimants (those under 65 at any rate,) which a faux right wing party can never win against real ones.
I wonder if we shouldn't be pressing for the retirement age to go up to 70. I'm 74 and I had a stroke last year, but I'm broadly OK to do part-time work, and more importantly most people who I know in the 65-70 range are actually fine, and merely pleasantly surprised to be able to retire at 65. Yes, the population is getting older, but I'd argue that the healthy population is actually growing.
I'm very glad that I was able to retire at 65.
Indeed so was I
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
Yet UK life expectancy has fallen to its lowest level for a decade, 78 for men and 82 for women.
So that would be political suicide to propose a retirement age of 70+
If it's both political suicide to junk the Triple Lock and political suicide to ramp the state pension age then I guess nothing will happen until we disappear into a debt vortex and are forced to do a slash and burn of the state by the bond markets.
In point of fact I still think they'll try jacking up the pension age first. Benefits for existing olds may be sacrosanct, but nobody in power gives a monkeys about the future of anybody aged under 50.
Not really true given Rayner's plans to concrete over much of the South East for new homes for the young
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
Because you're thinking with your ideology and not your brain.
Those of you discussing council debt as if councils borrowed from the market are (in 99% of cases) wrong. The borrowing will be from the Public Works Loan Board (HMT) via an application assessed by central government and the “collateral” is future revenues. The Government backs off that loan on the market.
In so far as a council is “bankrupt” it is a national Government problem.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
There are many different forms of religious fundamentalism - which is why fundamentalists often hate each other, or even fight. You have made it fairly clear in previous comments that you are a fundamentalist - particularly in your views towards women. You say 'restrict womens' ability to have careers', but I'm fairly sure you've also written about the need for women to stay at home.
As for fundamentalism: here's a definition: "fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts."
I said I want to make it easier for women to be mothers and stay at home or only work part time not that I would ban women from having careers
Women are not banned from having careers in Iran...
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
'Conventional' politics is being thrown up in the air by the Septic Tank in Washington. I am still hoping, even in my mid-80's, to see us Rejoin before I die!
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
There are many different forms of religious fundamentalism - which is why fundamentalists often hate each other, or even fight. You have made it fairly clear in previous comments that you are a fundamentalist - particularly in your views towards women. You say 'restrict womens' ability to have careers', but I'm fairly sure you've also written about the need for women to stay at home.
As for fundamentalism: here's a definition: "fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts."
I said I want to make it easier for women to be mothers and stay at home or only work part time not that I would ban women from having careers
Women are not banned from having careers in Iran...
In Afghanistan the Taliban ban women from higher education completely and just 4.8% of women in Afghanistan work and then only in the few jobs women are allowed to work with a permit such as food preparation or tailoring
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
37% is significantly more than Reform polling.
Anyone still saying they think Brexit has been a success or were better off out is not going to change their mind now, and they are probably either Reform inclined or Reform curious.
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
Next.
60/40 against? Really? A pretty ridiculous prediction..😏
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
Next.
Or King Charles II trying to overturn Cromwell’s republic?
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
Next.
60/40 against? Really? A pretty ridiculous prediction..😏
Err, no. And, yes, I think it'd be clearly won by Stay Out and Rejoin would clock a low 40%.
You people simply have no idea how you come across.
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
37% is significantly more than Reform polling.
Anyone still saying they think Brexit has been a success or were better off out is not going to change their mind now, and they are probably either Reform inclined or Reform curious.
No. That’s just the caricature. Many like me voted on the principle of sovereignty, not on things like immigration. We’re not a constituency Reform appeals to, but we were part of the 14m Boris got. The right Tory leader could command that coalition; but Farage never will.
I think the single most important thing to understand about politics in most western countries today is the fact that the hyperliberals, or alt-liberals, have decided they're not going to compromise on anything. They'd rather go down to defeat to populists than make the slightest concessions. This is what happened with the Democrats and Trump.
Like any such analysis, that works both ways.
I could rewrite it and say that "The Right" hasn't decided to make any concessions to the Centre, and that they are responsible for "hyperliberalism".
The polarization isn't just one sided, and to pick a side and blame them for causing it is just lazy.
I would also point out that in 2023/2024, where the Nationalist/Populist Right was in power and faced an elections, they got hit too: see Brazil, India and Poland.
It's almost like voters *everywhere* had a shitty time as economies emerged from Covid and dealt with the impacts of the Ukraine invasion on energy prices.
Hyperliberalism is also in reality hyper wokeism and often quite intolerant of dissenting more traditional and socially conservative views. Wokeism is more hyper 'progressivism' in which gender, sexuality, race, nationhood etc is all seen through the prism of social injustice which must be rectified by redistrubution or wealth and power from those traditionally 'privileged' especially white heterosexual males. In some respects it is closer to socialism than liberalism.
True liberals are socially liberal but also more tolerant of others opinions and less eager to see everything through class, gender, sexuality and racial lines.
Your point on the cost of living being the main determinant of recent national elections is also correct
I' not sure you - as a religious fundamentalist - is in any position to define what 'liberal' should mean...
If I was a religious fundamentalist I would make weekly church attendance compulsory and non attendance met with a fine as was the case until the early 19th century in the UK and also make homosexuality illegal and abortion illegal and restrict womens' ability to have careers, none of which I support but which is the position in religious fundamentalist states like Iran and Afghanistan
Have you ever stood for election? And canvassed door to door. If you do, I'll come along - with the medical kit.
I believe @HYUFD has stood for election and he has certainly canvassed voters
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
Next.
60/40 against? Really? A pretty ridiculous prediction..😏
Err, no. And, yes, I think it'd be clearly won by Stay Out and Rejoin would clock a low 40%.
You people simply have no idea how you come across.
I am confounded how reform can do so well while brexit support is in such radical decline (rejoin and dropping red lines have huge support). I guess even farage has been critical of brexit lately 🤷♂️
45/37 in favour of rejoin in the latest poll
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
Because it isn’t “rejoining”. It’s joining. And those who know what that means know a ten point starting lead isn’t enough to win a referendum on it.
It'd be lost by over 60:40. This is like Queen Mary trying to overturn the Reformation.
Next.
Or King Charles II trying to overturn Cromwell’s republic?
It was with an acceptance of constitutional not absolute monarchy and that Parliament was now supreme not the Crown.
We may rejoin the single market in time but unlikely the full EU
Comments
Local government is entirely a creature of statute. It has zero inherent powers. It can only do what statute allows. It is accountable to auditors and to government/parliament. Government has powers to regulate the affairs of local authorities. When one goes completely off the rails not only has the authority failed, the oversight has failed too.
Incorporating the Credulous Gazette, Shit-Smearer’s Monthly, and Whose Bollocks? magazine.
Republic now.
What actually needs to happen is a clear delineation of whether local government paper is backed by the Treasury, or not.
The simplest solution is “not”. But this would cause borrowing for LAs to soar.
So they are, apparently, only partially responsible for their actions.
Fratelli D’Italia beats them both.
He is right, I think, that over time a lot of DEI policies DEI morphed into outright racism (i.e. elevating protected groups).
The great irony, in the US, is that there still is a massive problem of actual racism: of near 100% white police departments in towns in the South that are 40% black, and where your chances of being stopped as a driver are something like 20x higher than if you are black than if you are white.
DEI - by contrast - was focused on places like academia and Silicon Valley, where there really wasn't a serious problem with racism.
It was almost an attempt to compensate for the ills suffered by the black populations of Jackson, Mississippi, that DEI engendered racist policies towards whites in wealthy cities.
A similar thing has happened with the transgender issue. Transgender people - whether in the US or the UK - are massively more likely to be the victim of assault, or abuse than regular people.
That is a very real problem.
Access to same sex changing spaces based on self-ID is not a real problem.
Where I think John Gray is quite wrong is that the pendulum has started swinging back on "woke" even before the election this year. Ballot propositions in California pushed Democrats back towards the center, and the next generation of Democrat leaders are much more likely to be Jon Ossoff or Pete Buttigieg than they are to be Gavin Newsom.
The law and application of it is certainly dubious but it is what it is and, again, why should taxpayers up and down the country bail out electors in Brum who voted in the incompetents who brought them to this situation ?
My own council in Durham could do with a billion or two.
He would push the concept of OODA as a way of getting ahead of your political advisories. The flurry of EO by Trump which presumably he's being fed by someone, has all the look of OODA. While everyone is debating the meaning of each EO, they are putting a lot of distance between themselves and the Dems/Libs/Whatever you want to call them.
Question is whether there is an end point where they will stop and consolidate - or whether, failing any legitimate means to stop them, J6 becomes May6, June6, July6 etc. The first time the army or National Guard is deployed may be the end of their beginning.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/brexit-news-brexit-strategy-dominic-cummings-ooda-loop-60948/
Not sure that 70 year olds working on building sites will work well.
Firstly, does it require retroactive legislation? If it does, you can't do it.
Secondly, do you surcharge all councillors, or just the ones who voted for stupidity? What about ones who voted for some stupid shit, but not others, or who were only councillors later after the shit had hit the fan, but did nothing to pull the plug?
Thirdly, even if you could extract £100,000 from every responsible councillor, you would have perhaps £3m out of a £300m hole.
People I know with a normal, but extended semi, there, say it is now worth £850k. This is at the London end.
Perhaps 10% would be a better idea.
I do agree though England should have its anthem as Jerusalem when it plays sporting fixtures as it does for the Commonwealth games and England Test cricket matches, especially given the other home nations in Britain and Australia, Canada and NZ also have the King as head of state not just England but their own anthems for sporting fixtures.
GSTK should be reserved for UK teams at the Olympic Games and GB teams in Davis cup tennis or rugby league or UK F1 winners of grand prix. Otherwise it should only be played elsewhere at sporting fixtures if a member of the royal family is present after the national anthems
I guess the brain development issue explains why this group supports the Green Party more than any other age demographic.
Working from a £2bn debt.
But I agree with you there.
I keep glancing over at the takeaway menu.
Should the pension age, in that case, be regional ?
I do think it will move up to 70 in time but I think the triple lock must go ASAP.
A sneaky England win here ?
I saw Passage to India recently, obvs not his very best work but the kind of spectacle nobody makes anymore.
The pension age is 66 rising to 67 for those born after April 1960 starting in May 2026
I understand some voices in Labour are expressing concern about the triple loc, but Starmer hasn't got the message yet as he boasts how he will pay it for the rest of this parliament
It is this stupid desire to play politics, rather than take the correct course and change it
Anyway, either it changes or 70+ becomes the retirement age
They also, to a remarkable extent, keep small businesses of many sorts going just by having time to spend money in them.
To day in my village it was almost exclusively the retired who supported the local school's fund raising event. Younger ones are too busy. I know the feeling.
What's really needed is a realistic attitude to how long retirement can be, coupled with a fundamental revision of what it actually is - the old fashioned cliff edge model needs to go in the dustbin, so that pensions are gradually phased in and people are enabled to go part time as they age - and the immediate junking of the Triple Lock in favour of something more affordable. What we'll actually get is current pensioners continuing to be cosseted, and current workers being expected to keep going full time until they're about 75.
Soaking the earnings of the working poor to throw cruise holiday deposits at home owning crusties is one of the factors that will sink this Government, and they'll deserve what they've got coming.
Leon will love it. (So will our gracious hosts.)
So that would be political suicide to propose a retirement age of 70+
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/jan/11/uk-life-expectancy-falls-to-lowest-level-in-a-decade
Re WFP, I doubt the £200 per household [ £300 for over 80s] has any effect on their holiday or cruise plans
Most polls have Labour 4th with pensioners now behind the Tories, Reform and Liberal Democrats
In point of fact I still think they'll try jacking up the pension age first. Benefits for existing olds may be sacrosanct, but nobody in power gives a monkeys about the future of anybody aged under 50.
It is unaffordable and if it is not addressed then pure economics will force the change
The country cannot afford to shovel money to well off pensioners, nor is it remotely fair to ask workers to pay the cost in their pay packets
And he's worked since he was sixteen, except for four years in his twenties when he went to Uni as a mature student. Although he worked every vacation.
As for fundamentalism: here's a definition:
"fundamentalism, type of conservative religious movement characterized by the advocacy of strict conformity to sacred texts."
If you're going to soak your opponent's core vote for revenue then you should do it properly.
See my posts from last week.
In so far as a council is “bankrupt” it is a national Government problem.
It is widely accepted across politics including by the Lib Dems rejoining is years away if at all
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19665615
In Afghanistan the Taliban ban women from higher education completely and just 4.8% of women in Afghanistan work and then only in the few jobs women are allowed to work with a permit such as food preparation or tailoring
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-07-07/an-afghan-woman-wanted-to-be-a-doctor-now-she-makes-pickles-as-the-taliban-restricts-womens-roles
Next.
Anyone still saying they think Brexit has been a success or were better off out is not going to change their mind now, and they are probably either Reform inclined or Reform curious.
You people simply have no idea how you come across.
We may rejoin the single market in time but unlikely the full EU