Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
Because they remember what happened to Theresa May's 25% lead in the run-up to the 2017 election when she made some very sensible proposals regarding care homes (if I recall correctly).
Trevor Phillips on Sky has just showed a chart that shows voting in intentions among people who attended stare and private schools and labour at 38% dominated private schools, way above reform on 25% and conservatives on 17%
Maybe unexpected ?
People still haven't got into their heads that Labour voting share correlates closely with household income.
It's the other shoe dropping from Red Wall theory.
The Conservatives played a short-term blinder in the late 2010s, by going socially more conservative. That added a decisive slice of Red Wall voters to their existing coalition. Fear of Corbyn kept the Cameroons on board, and it looked like a winner. There were two downsides, which took longer to become clear.
One was that, emergency over, the Cameroons have buggered off, because they don't like the social conservatism. In some seats, that's to the Lib Dems, in others it was to Labour for lack of an alternative.
The other, bigger, problem is that Reform are much better at the social conservatism stuff than the original blue team.
What doesn't help is how poorly most parties understand or accept who is actually voting for them. Arguably, the Lib Dems are best at that right now. Labour are making a mess of it, and the Conservatives don't want to admit that they are a trade union for pensioners.
Though there's the usual tut-tutting from the usual suspects, it's good to see Sir Ed Davey having a bit of fun at the start of the LD Conference. For those who never had the pleasure of attending a Liberal Assembly or even an early Lib Dem Conference, they were fun-filled social events where serious politics is relegated to the Conference Floor and the odd Fringe meeting (and some of them were very odd).
The heart of it is a social gathering of like-minded people who exchange notes and war stories (usually about winning seats off the Tories or Labour). There's singing, drinking and laughs and I suspect the same happens at other Conferences as well though the Conservatives are likely more decorous.
That's not to say the big items don't get discussed once you get through the formulaic business - parties are businesses and in effect the Conference functions as an AGM with changes to the way the business is run as much on the agenda as weighty debates about the issues of the day.
Conferences used to show the true nature of parties - divided, disparate and occasionally rancorous but in the days of media imagery and top down control, any displays of disloyalty are relegated to the furthest edges of the fringe and it's more like a rally. The days when the party leader would be among the delegates on the Conference floor having the same vote as everyone else probably no longer exist. Inconvenient Conference decisions are waved away these days in the name of unity and with social media the slightest notion of dissent is magnified into a full-blown rebellion within minutes and you have forums this like where those opposed can jab and point at the slightest indiscretion.
Good morning everybody.On a fine sunny morning, with the sun glinting off my computer screen!
I went to few Liberal Conferences in the 70's/80's and they were as Mr Stodge describes; cheerful affairs, where the great and good of the Party mixed with the delegates, especially during the evening socialising.
I've listened to several Party Leaders in the last few days and what struck me about Ed Davey was that he was cheerful. Starmer came across as somewhat indecisive and still finding his way and both Badenoch and Farage as self-righteous and unwilling to listen. If we hear more of the LibDem Front Bench in the next few days I suspect it will be a Good Thing for the party, and the country. The world in general and this country in particular are in a bad place at the moment and a bit of positivity won't go amiss.
And before anyone seizes on about 2% of my post, yes, we in Britain are a great deal better off than many other people.But that doesn't mean things couldn't all be better for everybody.
I was at a good many Labour conferences in the 90s and the 0s - the action was overwhelmingly on the fringe, with the set-piece debates generally dull. The fringe meetings had no direct policy impact, of course, but they did occasionally set the scene for later changes. As OKC says, the atmosphere was generally cheerful - delegates were doing what they enjoyed. That said, few conferences had a lasting effect.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
Because they remember what happened to Theresa May's 25% lead in the run-up to the 2017 election when she made some very sensible proposals regarding care homes (if I recall correctly).
Another elephant in the room. Triple Lock will be an irrelevance when the cost of Adult Social Care appears on the horizon in a few years. Talking to someone who still has her parents but one is in a care home. If the family want to go away on holiday, the father they still look after has to go to respite care at £1700/£2000 per week. And that is on top of the holiday cost.
No only have few made the pension provision needed for longer lifetimes (hence triple lock/pension credit) but ASC is another black hole in the making. So back to the issues of how will future governments persuade the working age and business to fund the promises of previous governments.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
Thing is any pensioner with money will be giving half of the whole pension it back to the tax man in any case so hardly a big deal and would cost far more to implement some crazy means tested scheme. As ever stupid people whining are just stupid fools.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Usual do gooder leftie half wit opinion, you are all whining about how rich boomers are , how easy they have had it etc. Make up your mind
OK, so I wasn't glued to the news all day yesterday, but all I saw of the LibDem conference was Sir Ed Davey leading an Orange Order flute band around a park. Or something like that.
I suppose there might be a 30 second mention when they vote to legalise pot, in time-honoured fashion.
The problem for the LibDems is that they are generally being ignored as an irrelevance.
The problem for the LibDems is they are an irrelevance and Ed Davey seems determined to keep them that way.
I don't know why you think it's a problem. If the national media largely ignore you but you still pick up seats then that's the best position to be in. I was arguing this to a Lib Dem friend who was moaning about lack of coverage on the BBC. The Lib Dems win seats by ruthlessly targeting local opportunities. The one time they tried to run a properly national campaign in 2019 ended in disappointment.
Yes, LibDems are NOTA. Trouble is, they are being outflanked even as NOTA.
We'll only be able to tell that after the next election. The only evidence we have thus far is that the Lib Dems have been remarkably good at translating their support into actually winning seats and that Reform are remarkably bad at it
And keeping seats.
PB demonstrating again that it struggles with theory of mind. The idea, for someone not naturally sympathetic to the Lib Dems that other people might actually want to vote for them for reasons other than the usual lazy tropes (NOTA! NIMBYs! Waitrose party!) is just too difficult to grasp.
It’s not actually that hard if you try. If you’re internationalist, liberal, environmentally conscious without wearing the hairshirt, fiscally responsible, believe in the market and free trade, don’t like kowtowing to Trump, are unhappy with Israel’s behaviour in Gaza without queuing up to join Hamas, believe in meaningful devolution and electoral reform, and think Britain’s place is in the EU, then the home for you is in the Lib Dems.
Those are not motherhood and apple pie, they’re Lib Dem positions which some will agree with and others despise. But those who don’t adhere to these beliefs seem to assume that nobody does.
The issue with Burnham is, I just do not see how he can be guaranteed a by-election win on current polling, no matter who stands down for him. Reform are quite capable of upsetting pretty much any seat as a one-off on a 'fuck 'em all' vote.
So I don't see how he can return to the commons before the next General Election, which pretty much rules him out of being PM.
The issue with Burnham is that he's no good.
That's not proven a barrier to being a PM in the past, has it?
Yes, but we often only find that out once they're tested in the top job. In the case of Burnham, and Boris before him, it's clear he'll be terrible even before he becomes PM, because of past experience.
Really?
An image of a certain lettuce springs unbidden to my mind.
As does a certain blond person with a Russian sounding name.
I mentioned Boris as being a counter-example. I was one of the few right-leaning voices on here who said he'd be a disaster, and gave the reasons why, as far back as 2014 or so. Truss is a slightly odd one, given how she came to power.
But mostly, we do not know. I expected Brown to be much better as PM than he was, as an example.
A fair few on the right were saying that Boris would be a disaster, but it was too easy to shout them down as victims of Brexit Derangement Syndrome. Which was a brilliant bit of sloganising.
And a pitiful failure to recognise that BDS, if it is even a thing, cuts both ways.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
There's a pretty strong correlation between age and right-wing views, and vice versa - much stronger than class or wealth these days. I'd argue that young people are more likely to feel that radical change is possible, whereas older people have tended to give up. Personally I've never felt any temptation to move right, but I've noticed contemparies quietly giving up on change in general and focusing on single issues. The only local charity in my village in Oxfordshire (Brightwell-cum-Sotwell) is about helping refugees, but it's a LibDem seat on the council with the only local issues being traffic speed and land use. Boris lives here but makes no attempt to influence local opinion, and is tolerated amicably on the basis that he's got to live somewhere.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
OK, so I wasn't glued to the news all day yesterday, but all I saw of the LibDem conference was Sir Ed Davey leading an Orange Order flute band around a park. Or something like that.
I suppose there might be a 30 second mention when they vote to legalise pot, in time-honoured fashion.
The problem for the LibDems is that they are generally being ignored as an irrelevance.
Paddy Ashdown was once described as 'taking on the David Steele role of stamping and shouting around like an angry budgerigar.'
It works as a simile...
And ‘chat show Charlie’ was never off the box.
David Steele had a dozen or so MPs, Ashdown twice that, Ed Davey has 72 MPs so needs to move on to serious politics. Continuing the stunts and student politics has led to the party being overtaken in public consciousness by Reform, who have only four or five MPs.
He needs a pledge card
The price for any electoral pact
1. Rejoin the EU without a referendum 2. Remove the triple lock 3. No school uniforms (the young French look so much better than the drab Brits) 4. Cut all prison sentences by half 5. To be discussed.....
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
Thing is any pensioner with money will be giving half of the whole pension it back to the tax man in any case so hardly a big deal and would cost far more to implement some crazy means tested scheme. As ever stupid people whining are just stupid fools.
Trevor Phillips on Sky has just showed a chart that shows voting in intentions among people who attended stare and private schools and labour at 38% dominated private schools, way above reform on 25% and conservatives on 17%
Maybe unexpected ?
Not if you read PB, it was mentioned a few days ago.
‘Just like that’ was Tommy Cooper who died on, erm, live television. Jill Dando was the one shot by the local nutter as confirmed by 12 good men and true in yet another advert for British justice (sorry, Scots, I know the law is different up there and you have only just voted to abolish a safeguard against dodge convictions).
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
There's a pretty strong correlation between age and right-wing views, and vice versa - much stronger than class or wealth these days. I'd argue that young people are more likely to feel that radical change is possible, whereas older people have tended to give up. Personally I've never felt any temptation to move right, but I've noticed contemparies quietly giving up on change in general and focusing on single issues. The only local charity in my village in Oxfordshire (Brightwell-cum-Sotwell) is about helping refugees, but it's a LibDem seat on the council with the only local issues being traffic speed and land use. Boris lives here but makes no attempt to influence local opinion, and is tolerated amicably on the basis that he's got to live somewhere.
OK, so I wasn't glued to the news all day yesterday, but all I saw of the LibDem conference was Sir Ed Davey leading an Orange Order flute band around a park. Or something like that.
I suppose there might be a 30 second mention when they vote to legalise pot, in time-honoured fashion.
The problem for the LibDems is that they are generally being ignored as an irrelevance.
The problem for the LibDems is they are an irrelevance and Ed Davey seems determined to keep them that way.
I don't know why you think it's a problem. If the national media largely ignore you but you still pick up seats then that's the best position to be in. I was arguing this to a Lib Dem friend who was moaning about lack of coverage on the BBC. The Lib Dems win seats by ruthlessly targeting local opportunities. The one time they tried to run a properly national campaign in 2019 ended in disappointment.
Yes, LibDems are NOTA. Trouble is, they are being outflanked even as NOTA.
We'll only be able to tell that after the next election. The only evidence we have thus far is that the Lib Dems have been remarkably good at translating their support into actually winning seats and that Reform are remarkably bad at it
And keeping seats.
PB demonstrating again that it struggles with theory of mind. The idea, for someone not naturally sympathetic to the Lib Dems that other people might actually want to vote for them for reasons other than the usual lazy tropes (NOTA! NIMBYs! Waitrose party!) is just too difficult to grasp.
It’s not actually that hard if you try. If you’re internationalist, liberal, environmentally conscious without wearing the hairshirt, fiscally responsible, believe in the market and free trade, don’t like kowtowing to Trump, are unhappy with Israel’s behaviour in Gaza without queuing up to join Hamas, believe in meaningful devolution and electoral reform, and think Britain’s place is in the EU, then the home for you is in the Lib Dems.
Those are not motherhood and apple pie, they’re Lib Dem positions which some will agree with and others despise. But those who don’t adhere to these beliefs seem to assume that nobody does.
Yes absolutely agreed. I'd also add that people seem to think it's somehow a bit parochial to cast your vote for a nice local candidate who puts in the effort to knock on people's doors rather than choose someone you don't really know based on their party's national position
The issue with Burnham is, I just do not see how he can be guaranteed a by-election win on current polling, no matter who stands down for him. Reform are quite capable of upsetting pretty much any seat as a one-off on a 'fuck 'em all' vote.
So I don't see how he can return to the commons before the next General Election, which pretty much rules him out of being PM.
The issue with Burnham is that he's no good. The mess he made of the Stafford NHS scandal and its aftermath is an example.
(And before anyone shouts "He wasn't the minister responsible at the time", as they often do, they need to remember he was "Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality)" right in the middle of the scandal, and hamstrung the initial Francis inquiry.)
You are quite right to raise this. But it will make no difference because Ministers refuse to accept any accountability for the mistakes they make, even when they are responsible or in a position to do something about them and do nothing. The British state's modus operandi when it harms its citizens is to do nothing for as long as possible, hope they all die off and throw a few crumbs and empty promises their way if it is absolutely forced to. See the Post Office's Horizon system, Grenfell, blood contamination, endless NHS disasters, Hillsborough, child sexual abuse in state run homes, endless police cock-ups and so on.
The state of our country can be summed up by the fact that we now need, apparently, a law to tell civil servants to tell the truth to public inquiries. Nothing better shows the moral morass we're in. So Ministers can behave like incompetent scumbags and still be seen as possible leaders. It is utterly gruesome and until we learn as a society to take responsibility for our actions and try to behave as grown ups, nothing will change for the better.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national idolisation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
That's the irony. Ending the triple lock would hit working age people far more than current pensioners.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
An obvious workaround is to increase the tax free allowance to match the state pension and increase the rate to make up the shortfall
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
I couldn't help thinking of the situation with Asquith in 1918, when he lost his seat in Fife and was seeking a by-election to return to the Commons.
He tried to persuade Francis Dyke Acland to vacate Camborne for him. Acland wrote back, 'I wish my seat were safe against all comers so that I could resign and you could take it: but it is not.'
(And he was right, actually, as he did lose it himself at the 1922 election.)
Burnham is in the same position. And by the time that changes, he will either be too old to lead a Labour party in opposition, or Starmer's hand will have been immeasurably strengthened by winning an election.
Either way, I don't think he's even worth a trading bet.
For shits and giggles, if somebody decides to stand down for Burnham, Starmer has the power to ensure an all woman shortlist.
That's not a problem. Burnham just has to identify as a woman and the base will love him/her/them/delete as appropriate.
Or qualify on the grounds that his bungling over Mid Staffs revealed him to be a total c[MODERATED]
The Labour Party quietly and without having a tantrum recently amended its internal rules to comply with the law. An all woman shortlist would consist of women. Only them. Not men - of any kind.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
The state pension will only be a few pounds short of the tax free allowance next April, so it will definitely go above it in April 2027 (assuming the TFA remains frozen). So this government will have to do something about it, unfortunately
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
The state pension will only be a few pounds short of the tax free allowance next April, so it will definitely go above it in April 2027 (assuming the TFA remains frozen). So this government will have to do something about it, unfortunately
Yep - and given the time frames required to update software that means the decision needs to be made in this budget - which it won't be so cue a panic later on.
Though there's the usual tut-tutting from the usual suspects, it's good to see Sir Ed Davey having a bit of fun at the start of the LD Conference. For those who never had the pleasure of attending a Liberal Assembly or even an early Lib Dem Conference, they were fun-filled social events where serious politics is relegated to the Conference Floor and the odd Fringe meeting (and some of them were very odd).
The heart of it is a social gathering of like-minded people who exchange notes and war stories (usually about winning seats off the Tories or Labour). There's singing, drinking and laughs and I suspect the same happens at other Conferences as well though the Conservatives are likely more decorous.
That's not to say the big items don't get discussed once you get through the formulaic business - parties are businesses and in effect the Conference functions as an AGM with changes to the way the business is run as much on the agenda as weighty debates about the issues of the day.
Conferences used to show the true nature of parties - divided, disparate and occasionally rancorous but in the days of media imagery and top down control, any displays of disloyalty are relegated to the furthest edges of the fringe and it's more like a rally. The days when the party leader would be among the delegates on the Conference floor having the same vote as everyone else probably no longer exist. Inconvenient Conference decisions are waved away these days in the name of unity and with social media the slightest notion of dissent is magnified into a full-blown rebellion within minutes and you have forums this like where those opposed can jab and point at the slightest indiscretion.
Good morning everybody.On a fine sunny morning, with the sun glinting off my computer screen!
I went to few Liberal Conferences in the 70's/80's and they were as Mr Stodge describes; cheerful affairs, where the great and good of the Party mixed with the delegates, especially during the evening socialising.
I've listened to several Party Leaders in the last few days and what struck me about Ed Davey was that he was cheerful. Starmer came across as somewhat indecisive and still finding his way and both Badenoch and Farage as self-righteous and unwilling to listen. If we hear more of the LibDem Front Bench in the next few days I suspect it will be a Good Thing for the party, and the country. The world in general and this country in particular are in a bad place at the moment and a bit of positivity won't go amiss.
And before anyone seizes on about 2% of my post, yes, we in Britain are a great deal better off than many other people.But that doesn't mean things couldn't all be better for everybody.
I was at a good many Labour conferences in the 90s and the 0s - the action was overwhelmingly on the fringe, with the set-piece debates generally dull. The fringe meetings had no direct policy impact, of course, but they did occasionally set the scene for later changes. As OKC says, the atmosphere was generally cheerful - delegates were doing what they enjoyed. That said, few conferences had a lasting effect.
Conferences are a good guide for the pubic to see what their Party really look like. What are their vaues ...what sort of people are they....Who can forget Peter Lilley's little book and the yelping blue rinses. It still gives me the shivers. Or Neil Kinnock showing why the left was the Party of decency not privilege 'I'm the first Kinnock to go to University...' that too was moving as was his 'grotesque sight of taxi drivers scurrying around taking our OWN etc.....
The issue with Burnham is, I just do not see how he can be guaranteed a by-election win on current polling, no matter who stands down for him. Reform are quite capable of upsetting pretty much any seat as a one-off on a 'fuck 'em all' vote.
So I don't see how he can return to the commons before the next General Election, which pretty much rules him out of being PM.
The issue with Burnham is that he's no good. The mess he made of the Stafford NHS scandal and its aftermath is an example.
(And before anyone shouts "He wasn't the minister responsible at the time", as they often do, they need to remember he was "Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality)" right in the middle of the scandal, and hamstrung the initial Francis inquiry.)
You are quite right to raise this. But it will make no difference because Ministers refuse to accept any accountability for the mistakes they make, even when they are responsible or in a position to do something about them and do nothing. The British state's modus operandi when it harms its citizens is to do nothing for as long as possible, hope they all die off and throw a few crumbs and empty promises their way if it is absolutely forced to. See the Post Office's Horizon system, Grenfell, blood contamination, endless NHS disasters, Hillsborough, child sexual abuse in state run homes, endless police cock-ups and so on.
The state of our country can be summed up by the fact that we now need, apparently, a law to tell civil servants to tell the truth to public inquiries. Nothing better shows the moral morass we're in. So Ministers can behave like incompetent scumbags and still be seen as possible leaders. It is utterly gruesome and until we learn as a society to take responsibility for our actions and try to behave as grown ups, nothing will change for the better.
A duty of candour goes a great deal further than just “telling the truth”. It’s not really about a “moral morass”; rather a recognition of how all large institutions tend to work, and a very sensible way of addressing that.
Introducing it across the public sector is, I believe, an exceptionally good idea, irrespective of how you view the moral state of the nation.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
The state pension will only be a few pounds short of the tax free allowance next April, so it will definitely go above it in April 2027 (assuming the TFA remains frozen). So this government will have to do something about it, unfortunately
Yep - and given the time frames required to update software that means the decision needs to be made in this budget - which it won't be so cue a panic later on.
Just declare that the first £1000 of State Pension is tax free?
The issue with Burnham is, I just do not see how he can be guaranteed a by-election win on current polling, no matter who stands down for him. Reform are quite capable of upsetting pretty much any seat as a one-off on a 'fuck 'em all' vote.
So I don't see how he can return to the commons before the next General Election, which pretty much rules him out of being PM.
The issue with Burnham is that he's no good. The mess he made of the Stafford NHS scandal and its aftermath is an example.
(And before anyone shouts "He wasn't the minister responsible at the time", as they often do, they need to remember he was "Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality)" right in the middle of the scandal, and hamstrung the initial Francis inquiry.)
You are quite right to raise this. But it will make no difference because Ministers refuse to accept any accountability for the mistakes they make, even when they are responsible or in a position to do something about them and do nothing. The British state's modus operandi when it harms its citizens is to do nothing for as long as possible, hope they all die off and throw a few crumbs and empty promises their way if it is absolutely forced to. See the Post Office's Horizon system, Grenfell, blood contamination, endless NHS disasters, Hillsborough, child sexual abuse in state run homes, endless police cock-ups and so on.
The state of our country can be summed up by the fact that we now need, apparently, a law to tell civil servants to tell the truth to public inquiries. Nothing better shows the moral morass we're in. So Ministers can behave like incompetent scumbags and still be seen as possible leaders. It is utterly gruesome and until we learn as a society to take responsibility for our actions and try to behave as grown ups, nothing will change for the better.
A duty of candour goes a great deal further than just “telling the truth”. It’s not really about a “moral morass”; rather a recognition of how all large institutions tend to work, and a very sensible way of addressing that.
Introducing it across the public sector is, I believe, an exceptionally good idea, irrespective of how you view the moral state of the nation.
Why does the private sector get a free pass on dishonesty? No "duty of candour" for Fujitsu, for example.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
The state pension will only be a few pounds short of the tax free allowance next April, so it will definitely go above it in April 2027 (assuming the TFA remains frozen). So this government will have to do something about it, unfortunately
Yep - and given the time frames required to update software that means the decision needs to be made in this budget - which it won't be so cue a panic later on.
Just declare that the first £1000 of State Pension is tax free?
Why should oldies get a higher tax allowance than those younger then them ?
In any case it would only be a temporary measure as the triple lock effectively guarantees that the state pension will steadily increase quicker than the basic tax allowance.
Additionally within a few years almost all new pensioners will be retiring with their own personal pension income thanks to auto enrolment.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
There is a real problem looming as the state pension approaches the personal allowance. Neither HMRC nor many financially unsophisticated pensioners will be able to cope with everyone having to complete a tax return for the first time in their lives. Maybe we can pay Capita £500 million to add pensions to the PAYE system.
I cannot imagine a large number of pensioners would know where to start on a tax return which in anycase would likely be a small amount of tax to pay
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
The state pension will only be a few pounds short of the tax free allowance next April, so it will definitely go above it in April 2027 (assuming the TFA remains frozen). So this government will have to do something about it, unfortunately
Yep - and given the time frames required to update software that means the decision needs to be made in this budget - which it won't be so cue a panic later on.
Just declare that the first £1000 of State Pension is tax free?
Trouble is it's such an obvious that one cannot comprehend why successive chancellors and tax 'experts' at the Treasury haven't, apparently, thought of it.
At the moment my sundry medium 'ancillary' pensions take me above the Allowance so they're all taxed at source and I don't have enough 'casual' income..... mainly audits for small local charities ..... to make it worth filling in a return. Before anyone starts spluttering HMRC have told me they 'assume' (rightly) that such income won't hit £1k pa and I and they can ignore them for tax purposes.
Mrs C though finds her income OAP & occupational pension) wavering around the Allowance level; some years she's taxed, some she isn't.
Neither of us gets involved with selling on eBay or anything like that.
People get old and then die. Happens to everyone, even flintknappers, becomes more prevalent after you become eligible for your Freedom Pass
No. There’s a pattern
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
People get old and then die. Happens to everyone, even flintknappers, becomes more prevalent after you become eligible for your Freedom Pass
No. There’s a pattern
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
She was just 118
So what’s going on??
There was someone on the TV today who was 116 or thereabouts.
The issue with Burnham is, I just do not see how he can be guaranteed a by-election win on current polling, no matter who stands down for him. Reform are quite capable of upsetting pretty much any seat as a one-off on a 'fuck 'em all' vote.
So I don't see how he can return to the commons before the next General Election, which pretty much rules him out of being PM.
The issue with Burnham is that he's no good. The mess he made of the Stafford NHS scandal and its aftermath is an example.
(And before anyone shouts "He wasn't the minister responsible at the time", as they often do, they need to remember he was "Minister of State (Department of Health) (Delivery and Quality)" right in the middle of the scandal, and hamstrung the initial Francis inquiry.)
You are quite right to raise this. But it will make no difference because Ministers refuse to accept any accountability for the mistakes they make, even when they are responsible or in a position to do something about them and do nothing. The British state's modus operandi when it harms its citizens is to do nothing for as long as possible, hope they all die off and throw a few crumbs and empty promises their way if it is absolutely forced to. See the Post Office's Horizon system, Grenfell, blood contamination, endless NHS disasters, Hillsborough, child sexual abuse in state run homes, endless police cock-ups and so on.
The state of our country can be summed up by the fact that we now need, apparently, a law to tell civil servants to tell the truth to public inquiries. Nothing better shows the moral morass we're in. So Ministers can behave like incompetent scumbags and still be seen as possible leaders. It is utterly gruesome and until we learn as a society to take responsibility for our actions and try to behave as grown ups, nothing will change for the better.
A duty of candour goes a great deal further than just “telling the truth”. It’s not really about a “moral morass”; rather a recognition of how all large institutions tend to work, and a very sensible way of addressing that.
Introducing it across the public sector is, I believe, an exceptionally good idea, irrespective of how you view the moral state of the nation.
Why does the private sector get a free pass on dishonesty? No "duty of candour" for Fujitsu, for example.
It shouldn't. Ought we to introduce it for all organisations above a certain size with activities in the UK ?
Though there's the usual tut-tutting from the usual suspects, it's good to see Sir Ed Davey having a bit of fun at the start of the LD Conference. For those who never had the pleasure of attending a Liberal Assembly or even an early Lib Dem Conference, they were fun-filled social events where serious politics is relegated to the Conference Floor and the odd Fringe meeting (and some of them were very odd).
The heart of it is a social gathering of like-minded people who exchange notes and war stories (usually about winning seats off the Tories or Labour). There's singing, drinking and laughs and I suspect the same happens at other Conferences as well though the Conservatives are likely more decorous.
That's not to say the big items don't get discussed once you get through the formulaic business - parties are businesses and in effect the Conference functions as an AGM with changes to the way the business is run as much on the agenda as weighty debates about the issues of the day.
Conferences used to show the true nature of parties - divided, disparate and occasionally rancorous but in the days of media imagery and top down control, any displays of disloyalty are relegated to the furthest edges of the fringe and it's more like a rally. The days when the party leader would be among the delegates on the Conference floor having the same vote as everyone else probably no longer exist. Inconvenient Conference decisions are waved away these days in the name of unity and with social media the slightest notion of dissent is magnified into a full-blown rebellion within minutes and you have forums this like where those opposed can jab and point at the slightest indiscretion.
Good morning everybody.On a fine sunny morning, with the sun glinting off my computer screen!
I went to few Liberal Conferences in the 70's/80's and they were as Mr Stodge describes; cheerful affairs, where the great and good of the Party mixed with the delegates, especially during the evening socialising.
I've listened to several Party Leaders in the last few days and what struck me about Ed Davey was that he was cheerful. Starmer came across as somewhat indecisive and still finding his way and both Badenoch and Farage as self-righteous and unwilling to listen. If we hear more of the LibDem Front Bench in the next few days I suspect it will be a Good Thing for the party, and the country. The world in general and this country in particular are in a bad place at the moment and a bit of positivity won't go amiss.
And before anyone seizes on about 2% of my post, yes, we in Britain are a great deal better off than many other people.But that doesn't mean things couldn't all be better for everybody.
I was at a good many Labour conferences in the 90s and the 0s - the action was overwhelmingly on the fringe, with the set-piece debates generally dull. The fringe meetings had no direct policy impact, of course, but they did occasionally set the scene for later changes. As OKC says, the atmosphere was generally cheerful - delegates were doing what they enjoyed. That said, few conferences had a lasting effect.
Conferences are a good guide for the pubic to see what their Party really look like. What are their vaues ...what sort of people are they....Who can forget Peter Lilley's little book and the yelping blue rinses. It still gives me the shivers. Or Neil Kinnock showing why the left was the Party of decency not privilege 'I'm the first Kinnock to go to University...' that too was moving as was his 'grotesque sight of taxi drivers scurrying around taking our OWN etc.....
......And Tony Blair with all those red clad fox hunters blowing their trumpets outside the conference hall and his first words were 'A great day to be a fox'. I became a fan from that moment onwards
Trump apparently tried to send a DM to Pam Bondi essentially telling her that his enemies need to be prosecuted. Instead he posted it on Truth Social, and it’s now been deleted. https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1969534195782598947
People get old and then die. Happens to everyone, even flintknappers, becomes more prevalent after you become eligible for your Freedom Pass
No. There’s a pattern
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
She was just 118
So what’s going on??
Wikipedia lists the timeline of the World's Oldest Living People from 1951 onwards according to Guinness.
Trump apparently tried to send a DM to Pam Bondi essentially telling her that his enemies need to be prosecuted. Instead he posted it on Truth Social, and it’s now been deleted. https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1969534195782598947
Stop press. It has been undeleted or reposted or something:-
Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115239044548033727
People get old and then die. Happens to everyone, even flintknappers, becomes more prevalent after you become eligible for your Freedom Pass
No. There’s a pattern
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
She was just 118
So what’s going on??
Wikipedia lists the timeline of the World's Oldest Living People from 1951 onwards according to Guinness.
People get old and then die. Happens to everyone, even flintknappers, becomes more prevalent after you become eligible for your Freedom Pass
No. There’s a pattern
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
She was just 118
So what’s going on??
Wikipedia lists the timeline of the World's Oldest Living People from 1951 onwards according to Guinness.
72 people in almost exactly 74 years, excluding the current living holder. 6 men, 66 women.
So the residual life expectancy on becoming the World's Oldest Person is almost exactly a year. I don't think I'd have expected much higher tbh.
Unless the record age increases at an unlikely rate, that's pretty well inevitable.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
The answer to the triple lock is the quadruple lock. Which is obviously better. "It's one louder, isn't it?"
So pensions will be locked to no less *and no more* than the Personal Tax allowance.
So if politicians want to bribe the wrinklies, they’ll have to bribe IT tax payers as well.
Cleverly is right in his observations though. Starmer needs to get a new suit
Cameron told Corbyn 'do your tie and top button up and buy a proper jacket.'
And he did!
And Cameron complimented him on the result, IIRC.
If you are going to wear a suit, do it properly. If you can’t be bothered to do it properly, wear jeans and a t-shirt.
I've never really understood this thing about ties, apart from demonstrating something about the wearers background.
Indeed a suit with a smart shirt and no tie can look very smart. However you do probably have to buy the suit with wearing it without a tie in mind as sometimes it just looks like something is missing. Can't really put my finger on what the difference might be though
Wasn't there something suspicious about her records? Apologies to her shade if they were correct.
Her Wikipedia bio goes into that and apparently the theory that she was really her daughter was debunked. France seems to have had really good birth registration in the latter part of the 20th century and probably a much more bureaucratic state than the UK at the time, so there seem to be a lot of records of her when she was younger
Bit of an odd line from Ed Davey about how he has to "go after Musk and X ", hardly the actions of a liberal ! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y558r2r1qo Maybe he should rename them The authoritarian Democrats ?
This is a good metric to my mind on how to judge politicians and public figures. Will they stick by their principles even when they're against their own side ?
Lol. While I was typing shrewd betting advice, smart minds on Betfair laid Keely of the board. Now 1000 to back and there's nothing to be laid.
The trouble with SPotY this year is it will come down to the lady soccerballer versus the lady rugger bugger, but those are both team games so we cannot be absolutely sure which players will appear on the BBC nominations list.
For those interested in the implosion at birth of YourParty here is Andrew Murray in the Morning Star - with an outlining of what happened in last few days:
"One of many supporters who I have spoken to in the last two days put it best by channelling Churchill: “Never have the hopes of so many been dashed by so few.”
"None of this could have happened, clearly, had Your Party been a happy ship. It has been an increasingly poorly kept secret over the last three months that, in fact, it is a very miserable vessel.
The road to Thursday’s pile-up is too long and winding to be outlined here. But relations began to deteriorate after the committee established to launch the new party voted, by a large majority, for Sultana and Corbyn to be co-leaders, a decision Sultana controversially and unilaterally announced immediately."
Trevor Phillips on Sky has just showed a chart that shows voting in intentions among people who attended stare and private schools and labour at 38% dominated private schools, way above reform on 25% and conservatives on 17%
Maybe unexpected ?
Matches current Yougov class voting intention.
Labour lead with middle class ABC1s on 24%, with 19% for Reform and the Tories.
Reform do much better with ex grammar school pupils though 'The headline figures put Reform on 32 per cent, Labour on 21 per cent, and the Tories on 18 per cent. For state schools, it was essentially the same: 33, 20, and 17 respectively. Not a surprise; after all, that is where most voters will have gone to school.
For grammar schools, it was more interesting. Reform were still in the lead with 34 per cent, but the Conservatives were up into second on 23 per cent. Indeed, Labour were all the way down in fourth, on a paltry 14 per cent, trailing the Liberal Democrats. But the result that cause me to chortle was the private one: Labour on 38 per cent, Reform on 25 per cent, Tories on 17 per cent.' https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/18/labour-should-want-more-children-to-go-to-private-schools/
Bit of an odd line from Ed Davey about how he has to "go after Musk and X ", hardly the actions of a liberal ! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y558r2r1qo Maybe he should rename them The authoritarian Democrats ?
This is a good metric to my mind on how to judge politicians and public figures. Will they stick by their principles even when they're against their own side ?
This week Sir Ed Davey -; Tucker Calrson +
There might be THREE things you need to know about the Holy Roman Empire but there are only TWO things you need to know about the Liberal Democrats, they aren't Liberal and they aren't Democrats
For anyone with a strong stomach, Pete Hegseth integrating politics and religion with a recital of the Lords Prayer over a montage of military operations. Bonus salute by Trump at the end.
I see the BBC aren't covering party conferences properly yet again.
Nothing live from LibDems all day as far as I can see.
How many years is it since they actually did proper conference broadcasts?
Party conferences used to be important policy forums (even the Conservative ones, whose motions congratulating this or that minister on the splendid job he was doing boasted an uncanny success rate). Then we had New Labour and conferences turned into American-style rallies so what is the point of wall-to-wall coverage anymore?
For anyone with a strong stomach, Pete Hegseth integrating politics and religion with a recital of the Lords Prayer over a montage of military operations. Bonus salute by Trump at the end.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
Thing is any pensioner with money will be giving half of the whole pension it back to the tax man in any case so hardly a big deal and would cost far more to implement some crazy means tested scheme. As ever stupid people whining are just stupid fools.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The problem is trying to define "pensioners" as a single homogenous block. All they have in common is their age - economicaly and financially, they are as diverse as the rest of us.
I had no problem with Reeves wanting to reduce eligibility for the Winter Fuel Allowance - had she said, for example, it wouldn't be available to higher rate taxpayers but only to those paying just basic rate or those solely on pension credit, I think most people would have, if not supported it then understood it.
The problem with the previous regime was it was easy and cheap to administer - as soon as you got the pension you were eligible for the allowance whatever your financial situation so both the poorest and wealthiest pensioners got it and that was an obvious anomaly which needed to be resolved.
The way Reeves went about it was as hamfisted and politically inept as you could imagine but the basic notion wasn't wrong and isn't wrong. Universal entitlement to benefits costs in every sense.
Much has been done to ensure those of advanced years have a decent standard of living but much remains to be done.
Thing is any pensioner with money will be giving half of the whole pension it back to the tax man in any case so hardly a big deal and would cost far more to implement some crazy means tested scheme. As ever stupid people whining are just stupid fools.
The WFA was a tax free payment.
not now sunshine
It still is. They simply use the tax system to deduct the value of it if you earn over £35,000. That's different to being generally taxable - someone in receipt of pensions to the value of £30,000 will receive it tax free
Bit of an odd line from Ed Davey about how he has to "go after Musk and X ", hardly the actions of a liberal ! https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y558r2r1qo Maybe he should rename them The authoritarian Democrats ?
This is a good metric to my mind on how to judge politicians and public figures. Will they stick by their principles even when they're against their own side ?
This week Sir Ed Davey -; Tucker Calrson +
There might be THREE things you need to know about the Holy Roman Empire but there are only TWO things you need to know about the Liberal Democrats, they aren't Liberal and they aren't Democrats
I disagree, under Ed Davy the LDs are socially liberal, democratic and more on the soft centre right than the social democratic spectrum they were under when Charles Kennedy for example was their leader
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
You halfwit the clue is in old age pensioner, , they don't work you nutter. They have paid tax and NI all their lives. The few who do work pay through the nose.
PS: I paid NI for 52 years, my tax is multiple times my state pension and I have made very very minimal use of NHS to date, how does that fit your lunatic imaginations.
Stride and Davey both affirm commitment to the triple lock
They are both wrong and how on earth are we to get out of this mess with politicians inability to do the right thing
The downside of democracy: governing in the national interest may result in electorally damaging actions.
Many opt to damage the national interest instead.
The triple lock is an interesting phenomenon - it's relatively new but is now allocated the same kind of national emulation as the NHS.
Removing it does not save the government much money in the short/medium term, nor does would affect current pensioners particularly badly. It's a long term fiscal issue that carries gigantic short-term political risk, so there is no chance of it removed by any party.
The triple lock is hated on social media as a sign politicians are in thrall to boomer pensioners who vote to impoverish workers and the young. My belief is this came originally from Russian trolls but we are where we are.
Depends which social media - on Facebook it would appear the Russian trolls have worked very hard to persuade boomers that getting rid of the triple lock would amount to geronticide, and therefore have undermined the UK's public finances.
Well, for a start, one clue is the use of the word boomers. We do not really use that term, and if we did, then our baby boom was later than the American one, so our boomers are not quite of pensionable age. It all smacks of some KGB analyst in Madeupgrad combining memes from the wrong side of the Atlantic rather than an organic, homegrown movement.
Surely the triple lock is of great importance to people "not quite of pensionable age" as they will be planning their retirements or even early retired and waiting for their company pension to be topped up by the state pension. So will have made decisions/will be making decisions based on the known financial environment.
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
not much more tax they can put on pensions without just stealing the lot
Pensioners don’t pay NI whilst being the biggest users of the NHS, which (at least originally!) was supposed to be funded out of NI payments.
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
You halfwit the clue is in old age pensioner, , they don't work you nutter. They have paid tax and NI all their lives. The few who do work pay through the nose.
If you are an OAP and working once the tax year loops round you will be category C and stop paying employee NI...
It gets worse. Look at Shigeyo Nakachi, She wasn't even 116. Just in her mid 100 and teens. That didn't save her. Slotted. Like the rest
I hope someone is looking after Ethel Caterham, she's here in Britain and right now she's the oldest living person, at 116 years 31 days. They need to put a guard on her, 24/7
Comments
Although, to be honest, tax treatment of pensions is probably much more important.
The Conservatives played a short-term blinder in the late 2010s, by going socially more conservative. That added a decisive slice of Red Wall voters to their existing coalition. Fear of Corbyn kept the Cameroons on board, and it looked like a winner. There were two downsides, which took longer to become clear.
One was that, emergency over, the Cameroons have buggered off, because they don't like the social conservatism. In some seats, that's to the Lib Dems, in others it was to Labour for lack of an alternative.
The other, bigger, problem is that Reform are much better at the social conservatism stuff than the original blue team.
What doesn't help is how poorly most parties understand or accept who is actually voting for them. Arguably, the Lib Dems are best at that right now. Labour are making a mess of it, and the Conservatives don't want to admit that they are a trade union for pensioners.
No only have few made the pension provision needed for longer lifetimes (hence triple lock/pension credit) but ASC is another black hole in the making. So back to the issues of how will future governments persuade the working age and business to fund the promises of previous governments.
PB demonstrating again that it struggles with theory of mind. The idea, for someone not naturally sympathetic to the Lib Dems that other people might actually want to vote for them for reasons other than the usual lazy tropes (NOTA! NIMBYs! Waitrose party!) is just too difficult to grasp.
It’s not actually that hard if you try. If you’re internationalist, liberal, environmentally conscious without wearing the hairshirt, fiscally responsible, believe in the market and free trade, don’t like kowtowing to Trump, are unhappy with Israel’s behaviour in Gaza without queuing up to join Hamas, believe in meaningful devolution and electoral reform, and think Britain’s place is in the EU, then the home for you is in the Lib Dems.
Those are not motherhood and apple pie, they’re Lib Dem positions which some will agree with and others despise. But those who don’t adhere to these beliefs seem to assume that nobody does.
Dead. Just like that.
The price for any electoral pact
1. Rejoin the EU without a referendum
2. Remove the triple lock
3. No school uniforms (the young French look so much better than the drab Brits)
4. Cut all prison sentences by half
5. To be discussed.....
But yes, the more you tax pensioners the less incentive there is to save via pensions - not much point if you’re not getting the tax benefits.
The state of our country can be summed up by the fact that we now need, apparently, a law to tell civil servants to tell the truth to public inquiries. Nothing better shows the moral morass we're in. So Ministers can behave like incompetent scumbags and still be seen as possible leaders. It is utterly gruesome and until we learn as a society to take responsibility for our actions and try to behave as grown ups, nothing will change for the better.
Folk don't focus on delayed gratification.
I expect something will happen on allowances for pensioners. or better still raise the allowance for everyone to the level of the state pension at the time it becomes a problem
Snuffed out. What’s happening??
It’s not really about a “moral morass”; rather a recognition of how all large institutions tend to work, and a very sensible way of addressing that.
Introducing it across the public sector is, I believe, an exceptionally good idea, irrespective of how you view the moral state of the nation.
If so, you have my sympathy.
Who is also extant.
In any case it would only be a temporary measure as the triple lock effectively guarantees that the state pension will steadily increase quicker than the basic tax allowance.
Additionally within a few years almost all new pensioners will be retiring with their own personal pension income thanks to auto enrolment.
At the moment my sundry medium 'ancillary' pensions take me above the Allowance so they're all taxed at source and I don't have enough 'casual' income..... mainly audits for small local charities ..... to make it worth filling in a return. Before anyone starts spluttering HMRC have told me they 'assume' (rightly) that such income won't hit £1k pa and I and they can ignore them for tax purposes.
Mrs C though finds her income OAP & occupational pension) wavering around the Allowance level; some years she's taxed, some she isn't.
Neither of us gets involved with selling on eBay or anything like that.
I first noticed a few days ago. Iconic figures taken before their time
eg Lucile Randon. We all loved her. “France’s oldest woman”. One minute she was here - the next, taken. Snuffed out like a candle - long before her time
She was just 118
So what’s going on??
Yes she wasn’t a spring chicken but she had plenty of go in her
Suddenly - dead. With no explanation?? Nothing but evasive comments and eerie silence
She was just 119 ffs
Ought we to introduce it for all organisations above a certain size with activities in the UK ?
And Jill Dando
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_O'Sullivan
So maybe I’m just being paranoid? I don’t know
But I know this. You’ve got to be careful in your 110s. Look after yourself. Eat properly - no messing about. It’s “sniper’s alley”
Trump apparently tried to send a DM to Pam Bondi essentially telling her that his enemies need to be prosecuted. Instead he posted it on Truth Social, and it’s now been deleted.
https://x.com/RichardHanania/status/1969534195782598947
Mind, it it was IQ you'd still be safe.
Broadcaster injects £847m of licence fee revenue to steady gold-plated retirement scheme
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/private-pensions/bbcs-1bn-pension-bailout/ (£££)
Closed to new staff for more than a decade, apparently.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_people?wprov=sfla1
72 people in almost exactly 74 years, excluding the current living holder. 6 men, 66 women.
So the residual life expectancy on becoming the World's Oldest Person is almost exactly a year. I don't think I'd have expected much higher tbh.
We have zero tolerance for direct or implicit threats against government officials. We've referred this matter to @SecretService and requested a full threat assessment.
https://x.com/GovPressOffice/status/1969521197135380937
Pam: I have reviewed over 30 statements and posts saying that, essentially, “same old story as last time, all talk, no action. Nothing is being done. What about Comey, Adam “Shifty” Schiff, Leticia??? They’re all guilty as hell, but nothing is going to be done.” Then we almost put in a Democrat supported U.S. Attorney, in Virginia, with a really bad Republican past. A Woke RINO, who was never going to do his job. That’s why two of the worst Dem Senators PUSHED him so hard. He even lied to the media and said he quit, and that we had no case. No, I fired him, and there is a GREAT CASE, and many lawyers, and legal pundits, say so. Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot. We can’t delay any longer, it’s killing our reputation and credibility. They impeached me twice, and indicted me (5 times!), OVER NOTHING. JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!! President DJT
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115239044548033727
If you are going to wear a suit, do it properly. If you can’t be bothered to do it properly, wear jeans and a t-shirt.
Venue dedicated to female anatomy can no longer ship souvenirs to the US thanks to tariffs
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/20/britain-vagina-museum-hit-trump-trade-war/ (£££)
An engineer attempting to dress smartly.
(And if he takes his jacket off, you discover that he's wearing a short sleeved shirt.)
So pensions will be locked to no less *and no more* than the Personal Tax allowance.
So if politicians want to bribe the wrinklies, they’ll have to bribe IT tax payers as well.
https://x.com/MMargolyes/status/1968222775115710558
https://vaginamuseumshop.co.uk/collections/tea-towels
Maybe he should rename them The authoritarian Democrats ?
It's a contrast to Tucker Carlson who is on the right side of the US' (Well Trump's) own latest moral panic about free speech https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/sep/20/tucker-carlson-trump-free-speech-crackdown (Threats from the FCC regarding ABC/Disney's merger in relation to what's being said on one of their shows are not on imo)
This is a good metric to my mind on how to judge politicians and public figures. Will they stick by their principles even when they're against their own side ?
This week Sir Ed Davey -; Tucker Calrson +
The trouble with SPotY this year is it will come down to the lady soccerballer versus the lady rugger bugger, but those are both team games so we cannot be absolutely sure which players will appear on the BBC nominations list.
"One of many supporters who I have spoken to in the last two days put it best by channelling Churchill: “Never have the hopes of so many been dashed by so few.”
"None of this could have happened, clearly, had Your Party been a happy ship. It has been an increasingly poorly kept secret over the last three months that, in fact, it is a very miserable vessel.
The road to Thursday’s pile-up is too long and winding to be outlined here. But relations began to deteriorate after the committee established to launch the new party voted, by a large majority, for Sultana and Corbyn to be co-leaders, a decision Sultana controversially and unilaterally announced immediately."
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/your-party-their-crisis-our-hopes-dashed
Labour lead with middle class ABC1s on 24%, with 19% for Reform and the Tories.
Amongst working class C2DEs though, Reform lead on 39% with just 15% for Labour and the Tories
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/voting-intention?crossBreak=c2de
Reform do much better with ex grammar school pupils though 'The headline figures put Reform on 32 per cent, Labour on 21 per cent, and the Tories on 18 per cent. For state schools, it was essentially the same: 33, 20, and 17 respectively. Not a surprise; after all, that is where most voters will have gone to school.
For grammar schools, it was more interesting. Reform were still in the lead with 34 per cent, but the Conservatives were up into second on 23 per cent. Indeed, Labour were all the way down in fourth, on a paltry 14 per cent, trailing the Liberal Democrats. But the result that cause me to chortle was the private one: Labour on 38 per cent, Reform on 25 per cent, Tories on 17 per cent.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/09/18/labour-should-want-more-children-to-go-to-private-schools/
https://vaginamuseumshop.co.uk/collections/all?page=2
Nothing live from LibDems all day as far as I can see.
How many years is it since they actually did proper conference broadcasts?
Just off to the Godmother's 90th.
For anyone with a strong stomach, Pete Hegseth integrating politics and religion with a recital of the Lords Prayer over a montage of military operations. Bonus salute by Trump at the end.
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth
@SecWar 12h
A prayer for Charlie, our warriors, and for our nation.
https://x.com/SecWar/status/1969530822127407323
This is a pattern. I am NOT being paranoid. It's basically a Kill List hiding in plain sight
You make the list, you get "a visit", bang. And some of them are barely in their 110s
PS: I paid NI for 52 years, my tax is multiple times my state pension and I have made very very minimal use of NHS to date, how does that fit your lunatic imaginations.
I hope someone is looking after Ethel Caterham, she's here in Britain and right now she's the oldest living person, at 116 years 31 days. They need to put a guard on her, 24/7