Analysis of civil service data by the Institute for Government finds there are now 520,440 full-time equivalent civil servants, 35 per cent higher than the pre-Brexit low.
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
Analysis of civil service data by the Institute for Government finds there are now 520,440 full-time equivalent civil servants, 35 per cent higher than the pre-Brexit low.
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
If we just say growth enough times.....and of course none of the issues ever cross Starmer's desk. Totally in the dark all the time.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
As you will know HYUFD, I'm more bullish about Tory prospects in rural parts of Scotland than Labours chances in urban Scotland. Its no coincidence Farage held his rally in Falkirk. I get the impression the blues have steadied the ship a little but they are still a long way back from Dougies 31 seat tally in 2021. The debates could turn some voters against Reform if Farage doesn't choose his Scottish leader wisely (assuming he doesn't pick himself)
They could but at the moment if Reform win seats in Scotland it is most likely to be Tory held ones
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes!
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
What Hamilton show us is FPTP is a real quagmire when multiple parties are within touching distance of each other. Expect the odd surprising result to be flung in, both on list and constituency votes, there will be some FPTP seats won with barely 10k votes
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
I've always been confused as to why neo-Naziism has such a following amongst some on the American Right.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
KKK was about preventing black representation or voting after the Civil War, was it not? With a resurgence after WW1, and another smaller one after WW2, which in some ways still persists. For me it's history of interest, but not something I have studied formally; my sister did "USA" whilst I did not.
And the tradition persists for all kinds of reasons, such as being hard-wired into the Southern Baptist Convention, which was set up to defend slavery, and only formally repented / apologised in 1995. But such cultures are not washed through in 30 years; it takes a firm change then at least an entire lifetime, perhaps 3-5 generations.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
From FON which has Labour far lower than other pollsters and the Greens much higher.
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
What Hamilton show us is FPTP is a real quagmire when multiple parties are within touching distance of each other. Expect the odd surprising result to be flung in, both on list and constituency votes, there will be some FPTP seats won with barely 10k votes
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
No but surprising things have happened and on national swing Reform could win a few Tory held rural seats in Scotland. I think Swinney is not as good a campaigner as Salmond or Sturgeon either and last time he led the SNP at a Holyrood election in 2003 they lost 8 MSPs. Not forgetting the SNP losses at the UK general election in 2024 when Swinney was their Scottish leader.
In some respects SNP complacency is good for Labour and Reform and the Greens and LDs, the media have already decided the SNP will be re elected comfortably but I suspect it will be closer
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
Nothing is certain in life except death and taxes!
Analysis of civil service data by the Institute for Government finds there are now 520,440 full-time equivalent civil servants, 35 per cent higher than the pre-Brexit low.
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
It is the difference between slogans and policy. Anyone can wish for a more efficient civil service, better schools and for the MoD to buy tanks more dangerous to ruskies than tommies but ministers need to have some idea how to get there, starting from where we are now. Modern politicians, especially the technocrats at 10 and 11 Downing Street, swept into power believing Whitehall had all the plans in a safe but had been blocked by those evil Tories.
*Techno*crats?
A major issue is complete lack of domain knowledge. And something akin to an active dislike for it.
See the specification for the Bat Tunnel - “no bats can be harmed” without understanding that nothing is 100%. And would result in nearly infinite costs attempting that.
See the attempt to specify a percentage of asylum seekers working on SMRs - when it is illegal for them to have jobs.
See the RAAC farce of declaring it “safe” despite it being fiat decision based on no technical knowledge, just cost.
See the BritVolt comedy, where people were *glad* they weren’t dealing with dirty handed technologists.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
I've always been confused as to why neo-Naziism has such a following amongst some on the American Right.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
KKK was about preventing black representation or voting after the Civil War, was it not? With a resurgence after WW1, and another smaller one after WW2, which in some ways still persists. For me it's history of interest, but not something I have studied formally; my sister did "USA" whilst I did not.
And the tradition persists for all kinds of reasons, such as being hard-wired into the Southern Baptist Convention, which was set up to defend slavery, and only formally repented / apologised in 1995. But such cultures are not washed through in 30 years; it takes a firm change then at least an entire lifetime, perhaps 3-5 generations.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
I'm trying to emphasise how what they have now is a continuation of a pre-existing tradition, which has a violent history, and it is re-emerging. Apols if I was not clear enough.
We have a similar emphasis in the UK, where there are plenty of BNP retreads and even National Front people still around. They don't go away.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
I've always been confused as to why neo-Naziism has such a following amongst some on the American Right.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
KKK was about preventing black representation or voting after the Civil War, was it not? With a resurgence after WW1, and another smaller one after WW2, which in some ways still persists. For me it's history of interest, but not something I have studied formally; my sister did "USA" whilst I did not.
And the tradition persists for all kinds of reasons, such as being hard-wired into the Southern Baptist Convention, which was set up to defend slavery, and only formally repented / apologised in 1995. But such cultures are not washed through in 30 years; it takes a firm change then at least an entire lifetime, perhaps 3-5 generations.
I didn't mean it literally, I know what the KKK stand for, but I just can't fathom how you can get so nasty and warped about race to that extent that you'd want to do what they do.
Culture.
If you train a society from birth, that a black person who isn’t subservient is a danger and that a black person who is armed *has started the fight* - just by existing - the KKK is inevitable.
It looks mad to you, because it is. But it happened because an entire population swam in the same sea of madness. And fish don’t see the water.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance Labour come fourth in Wales?
There is a chance they could finish that low in Scotland, if Reform polling holds up and the Tories are strong in rural areas
Scotland may actually end up being Starmer's best result. In 2021 Labour were 3rd in Scotland and the SNP vote and Tory votes are still down more than the Labour vote relative to 2021. Indeed if Reform take 2021 SNP voters as well as Tory votes they could win a few Tory constituency seats at Holyrood but help Labour to win some SNP seats, as the Hamilton by election showed.
By contrast Labour won in Wales in 2021 and look like falling to 3rd there and the London, big city and other 2026 council elections were last up in 2022 when Labour won the NEV.
Kemi faces even more of a nightmare in terms of likely seats lost than Starmer as in 2021 the Tories were second in Scotland and Wales after the Boris vaccine bounce and even in 2022 the Tories got 30% NEV, whereas now they are polling 20% at best.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
If I remember correctly the police have struggled in the past few years with the ticketed area in central London as people have steamed the entry points.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
Join a club, a choir, go to the pub, etc. Apps are not the only way to meet people
Yes take up an activity or hobby that involves meeting up in groups, preferably something that attracts reasonable numbers of both men and women.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
Any party campaigning on the line "You never had it so good" would be slaughtered, but in economic terms would be correct.
The problem is not so much economic, albeit tha economy is rather sluggish, but more a crisis of confidence in wider civic society. This is common to much of the developed world, rather than being UK specific of course.
Is the future to be one of digital hermits being fed narrowcasting by shadowy billionaires or are we going to engage with our neighbours? This is why I found the Primrose Hill closure depressing. Spontaneous, free and chaotic inter-reactions are deplored.
I was eavesdropping on couple of our Gen Z staff in the coffee room the other day. There are fewer and fewer random introductions via friends in the dating world now, and the Apps are increasingly awful, being dominated by men using the Boomhauer technique. No wonder the TFR is dropping faster than Starmers ratings.
You do realise we have an astonishingly high deficit and our debt interest payments dwarf our Defence budget? That's not a minor matter.
That sort of catastrophism is part of the problem. The deficit isn't particularly bad either by historic measures or in comparison to peer countries.
The deficit so far this financial year is £132bn, the second highest on record after 2020 when we had a pandemic on, higher than in 2009 when there was a massive recession.
It’s true that most of the West is up to their neck in debt, but that doesn’t make it a good thing!
Is that adjusted for inflation or not?
Looking up the numbers… no. So, adjusting for inflation, the 2009 deficit was much bigger at about £282bn.
Lots of figures are the highest on record if you don’t adjust for inflation.
Bad comparison though as the 2009 figure was during a recession.
There has not been a recession this year and we are a number of years from our last significant recession (albeit there was a small technical one in 2023/24).
Our deficit should cyclically be higher in recessions than non-recession years, maxing out the deficit in non-recession years means that when a recession hits catastrophe is inevitable. See blowing the deficit wide open from a surplus in 2002 to a major deficit in 2008 without a recession in the interim and what happened next.
In other countries, the response would be to increase policing.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
I was back in the UK less than 1hr before I saw somebody shoplifting at the airport which the staff and security did nothing about (as in they didn't call the police). Only when the individiual starting threatening people like the incredible hulk were the finally police called. They then spent 10 minutes trying to negiotate with him. Unsurprisingly he then tried to attack the police which resulted in a massive team of police being required. 3 police vans later they got him arrested and dragged off.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
I’m not saying replaced, I’m saying reformed.
I’m not convinced about means testing. Overly bureaucratic and a benefits trap.
Reforms inevitably would require some version of means test
Agree with @Taz, means testing has all sorts of problems that we see elsewhere. It costs a lot more to administer. It creates cliff edges (we should be getting rid of these not creating more). It is also incredibly easy to abuse by people with DC pensions. People with DC pensions already ensure they cut off before the 40% band. I'm sure the same will happen with the Winter Fuel Allowance at 35k.
It should have been scrapped entirely.
There are lots of little luxuries like this we can no longer afford.
I was happy with WFA being limited to those on benefits, but they buckled to pressure. They should have stuck to their guns.
It still really annoys me that I get the £10 Xmas bonus. I mean what is the point? My wife got it for the first time this year. £10 is peanuts, especially for those well off.
The £10 bonus was introduced in 1972, and its value has never been increased. If it had been linked to inflation it would be nearly £120 this year.
If I get through to early summer, I shall have been retired, and drawing my OAP, for 23 years. I had three main periods of employment, ie significantly different jobs, 23 years, 6 years (self) and 13 (NHS). In other words I will be almost at the position where I've drawn an NHS pension for twice the time I worked for the 'organisation'.
I pay income tax on my various pensions of course, but I can't see that overall this sort of situation is sustainable for the state, especially when I see all the people I know in a similar position. The 'Christmas bonus' and the WFA especially are unsustainable. I would not be surprised, or indeed, disappointed, if in April when I get my annual tax statement I see the WFA deducted.
My Grandad was born in 1920 and had his degree (Bristol, History) interrupted by the war, during which he was variously involved in digging ditches on farmland, working as a hospital orderly, or volunteering for the Friends Ambulance Unit in Northern France and Berlin.
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
Basically a tontine ...?
Pensions *were* originally set to start at an age which meant that many wouldn’t get anything, and those that did, didn’t generally get them for long.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
It should only be a single one, so two should be removed, not one.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
I believe Bismark instituted the first state pension in Prussia to commence at age 65 at that time life expectancy for industrial workers was 66. The idea to give the workers final year in comfort.
More that many wouldn’t make it. A number would get a couple of years of pension. A handful would get to be greybeards.
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
Analysis of civil service data by the Institute for Government finds there are now 520,440 full-time equivalent civil servants, 35 per cent higher than the pre-Brexit low.
Middle management in Whitehall has increased 132 per cent since 2010 and the senior civil service by 52 per cent, with analysts saying this is partly because of staff being over-promoted in order to get round pay squeezes, a phenomenon dubbed “grade inflation”.
A year ago Starmer said he wanted “the complete rewiring of the British state” and has since stressed that his ministers “don’t want a bigger state” but a “more agile and productive one”.
All that tough talking from Pat McFaddon doesn't seem to be doing anything.
Takes a bit of time to reduce civil service. Voluntary exit schemes takes ages to run for some reason but I suspect will be well subscribed ultimately.
I'm sure they will be able to get numbers down. More productive? Who knows.
FPT, MAGA’s, Christianity, and Jews. I think they’ll end up going in two directions.
1. Denying that Jesus was Jewish, but rather, asserting that he was an Aryan.
2. Embracing Nordic paganism.
I've always been confused as to why neo-Naziism has such a following amongst some on the American Right.
But, then again, I've never understood the Klu-Klux Klan either.
Particularly, as Hitler would have completely despised modern neo-Nazis, anyway, as obviously low-IQ embarrassments.
It's remarkable how much of the German intelligentsia embraced Nazism wholesale at the time.
Not so much, when you review the extraordinary lengths they went to capture almost every organisation within their country during the months after Mr H became chancellor in 1933. The (comparatively) moderate politicians thought they could ‘control’ the Nazis despite their assuming the chancellorship, yet the reality was that by the end of that year anyone who fancied speaking out faced a most unpleasant fate indeed.
There will be a 2026 PB predictions competition, it will come with a prize of £100 Amazon vouchers.
I just need to pull out my finger and work out 12 questions to ask you all.
I think the NEV shares published by the BBC after the English Locals will be more interesting than the number of seats, considering it is unclear how many elections will go ahead.
Wales and Scotland, US House and Senate are good ones.
Who will lead each party at next year end too.
On the subject of Wales, a really good question would be, which party will come third?
Because I think that is very much up for grabs, with three parties jostling for it and possibly two more in the wings.
I would expect the leading party to be Plaid or Labour, but if Labour have a bad night Reform could pip them for second - meanwhile Reform is itself very much mired in scandal in Wales and tends to attract those groups less likely to vote, so may easily fall back rapidly.
Is there a chance that Llafur might still top the poll? That would take a fair bit of swingback from recent polling. I guess that unlike their cowardly Scotch cousins, they’ve made some attempt to distance themselves from the stinking dead albatross of London Labour, but will it be enough?
Either way it will be a Plaid and Labour government, the only question being which of the parties comes top to provide the FM
Comments
Though even that poll has the SNP down 2 seats on 2021 and the SNP vote down 13% on the constituency vote to just 34% from 47%.
What we saw in the Hamilton by election was the SNP vote down 16% on 2021 to 29%, so not miles off even the FON poll, and the Labour vote only down 2% to 31% with Reform getting 26%, so Labour gained the seat
Strasbourg court questions Britain on decision to strip 26-year-old of her citizenship after she joined Islamic State
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/31/european-human-rights-court-shamima-begum/
I am sure Hermer and Starmer will fight really hard against this.
I can't see Reform taking that Borders seat for example, or the Tories taking only 2 seats in South of Scotland
In some respects SNP complacency is good for Labour and Reform and the Greens and LDs, the media have already decided the SNP will be re elected comfortably but I suspect it will be closer
A major issue is complete lack of domain knowledge. And something akin to an active dislike for it.
See the specification for the Bat Tunnel - “no bats can be harmed” without understanding that nothing is 100%. And would result in nearly infinite costs attempting that.
See the attempt to specify a percentage of asylum seekers working on SMRs - when it is illegal for them to have jobs.
See the RAAC farce of declaring it “safe” despite it being fiat decision based on no technical knowledge, just cost.
See the BritVolt comedy, where people were *glad* they weren’t dealing with dirty handed technologists.
We have a similar emphasis in the UK, where there are plenty of BNP retreads and even National Front people still around. They don't go away.
If you train a society from birth, that a black person who isn’t subservient is a danger and that a black person who is armed *has started the fight* - just by existing - the KKK is inevitable.
It looks mad to you, because it is. But it happened because an entire population swam in the same sea of madness. And fish don’t see the water.
Teenager detained for boy's New Year's Eve murder https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c17p2yz4rl0o
Of course that old story is completely missing from the reports
https://news.sky.com/story/hamilton-larkhall-and-stonehouse-by-election-who-are-the-candidates-13378474
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crrkreqvzy2o
After the war he finished his degree (I think graduating in 1947) and then started a career in teaching, from which he retired 33 years later in 1980. He died, aged 97, in 2017, after 37 years of retirement.
He was obviously one of the lucky ones, and he had gone to all the funerals of his contemporaries, whose earlier deaths helped to make his pension affordable. But I think a lot of people look at a story like that and imagine that everyone can have as long a retirement as that, perhaps making an argument on the lines of fairness, but it's the unfairness of relatively early death for many that makes a long retirement affordable for some.
But shutting things down is easier.
The fact that this then feeds the perception that public spaces are too dangerous is ignored.
It’s Broken Windows Theory in reverse.
The lucky few… so yes, a tontine isn’t a bad way of losing at it.
There has not been a recession this year and we are a number of years from our last significant recession (albeit there was a small technical one in 2023/24).
Our deficit should cyclically be higher in recessions than non-recession years, maxing out the deficit in non-recession years means that when a recession hits catastrophe is inevitable. See blowing the deficit wide open from a surplus in 2002 to a major deficit in 2008 without a recession in the interim and what happened next.
If they are turning blind eye to stuff at an international airport its a lost cause.
(Not advocating it) but in China you get the mace and electric cattle prod treatment if you misbehave in the train station or airport public areas.
I'd remove the 2.5% and inflation, welfare should never rise higher than earnings as a matter of principle.
If not earnings alone used, then inflation alone should be used. And if that means the figure is 50p, or negative, then that's what it should be.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pTE6YfrcOU8
So the whole thing wouldn’t cost much.
Then those darn’ medicos stuffed it all up. Along with the water companies and supermarkets.
Linky plz?
I'm sure they will be able to get numbers down. More productive? Who knows.