Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
A bottled water sold at Waitrose could contain glass and should be returned to the store, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) warned.
The 750ml No1 Royal Deeside Mineral Water and the sparkling variety are being recalled "because of the possible presence of glass fragments upon opening the bottles," which the FSA said "may cause injury and makes it unsafe to drink".
The Welsh are so bad at everything.
"Deeside" is in Wales, but "Royal Deesside" is in Scotland. Tut.
I think you should all forget my mistake about Deeside otherwise I might have to deploy that photo.
If you were brave, you’d argue that you statement wasn’t inaccurate just a non sequitur
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
I'd try to give up the 'palpably' approach if I were you. One can inspect and disapprove at a goodly distance.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
Most social media is drek. My daughters have moved (mostly) to subscribing to some podcasts, with TikTok for brainless fun.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Random and a bit unconvincing.
1-4 seems me as reasonable. 5 and 6 unlikely (or may be Maggie Oliver lower down the list).
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.
You're saying Bismarck didn't understand probability distribution?
It didn't. If it had it would never have tried to break into the North Atlantic with the Prinz Eugen.
I wondered why a post about understanding something invoked an 'it' reply so I expanded the previous quotes. It's a long, long thread that began in Primrose Hill. And even then it required a search on Bismarck and Prinz Eugen. Both ships, not a person and a ship.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Can't say I've heard of 6, 11, 12, and 13.
11 is Fred Goodwin who drove RBS into the ground at a rate of knots
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
Gullibly swallowing every conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence. I blame the chemtrails.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Can't say I've heard of 6, 11, 12, and 13.
I can sympathise with 12 and 13, because I've no clue who they are either, but I'm surprised you've never heard of Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin, CEO of RBS when it went bellyup in 2008.
12 was the founder of Deepmind so has a case to be on the list
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
National Service for younger pensioners?
That's an interesting idea, and helps avoid the cliff edge effect some people experience when retiring suddenly.
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
This is where I would argue the benefit of the unreasonable number of hours each year most reading this on New Year's Eve spend on PB.
It's full of a wide range of viewpoints. And you can't filter the ones you don't like out like you can on X or Reddit or whatever else people use.
You are therefore much less likely to end falling down an alt-right or alt-left rabbit hole than you find elsewhere on the internet. While being informed of differing viewpoints.
Or course the author above is now speaking to a lower class of audience (Telegraph and New Statesmen readers) than he was on here, so he can write whatever dribble he fancies unchallenged.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
I used to hate it then grew up and stopped caring. I’m usually butchering Mystify by INXS. I’m impressed you do it though as I think you don’t drink. Maybe I didn’t grow up enough and can’t unshackle my shame without four hundred beers in me.
My mother was a music teacher so I am a quite good tenor. I can't hit the A5 on the outro of Don't Wanna Miss a Thing like Steven Tyler but nobody (except my mother) ever notices.
If called upon for an encore, it's Rainbow in the Dark.
If in good voice, I can do a passable Don't Stop Me Now, but my natural range is more The Man Comes Around.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
Metafrolickly speaking.
I get that. But it’s a good example of why politicos are so careful
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
And is that in addition to the 24/7 duties involved in caring for e.g. my father? Or could we increase my pension to the number of hours actually worked?
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
I'd try to give up the 'palpably' approach if I were you. One can inspect and disapprove at a goodly distance.
Yes ok. I don't actually want to 'palpate' any of them.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
National Service for younger pensioners?
That's an interesting idea, and helps avoid the cliff edge effect some people experience when retiring suddenly.
I would say have accredited organisations and then let people do what they want.
Anything from working in a charity shop to helping Keep Britain Tidy on a litter picking campaign.
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
Metafrolickly speaking.
I get that. But it’s a good example of why politicos are so careful
***
“Next minute slap them around the chops”
Starmer aide threatens female voters
Undermines PM’s initiative on domestic violence
***
I'm totally alive to that. My advice to him was given in a private oral one to one. No chance of a leak.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
You mean like being on probation?
Probation you have to have a higher paid staff ratio because people aren’t willing to do. This should be fitted into existing structures (eg volunteer programme at a museum for 1 day a week = 8 hours).
It’s a recognition that you get the state pension but should make a contribution to society in return plus the mental and physical benefits of keeping active and engaged
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
Metafrolickly speaking.
I get that. But it’s a good example of why politicos are so careful
***
“Next minute slap them around the chops”
Starmer aide threatens female voters
Undermines PM’s initiative on domestic violence
***
I'm totally alive to that. My advice to him was given in a private oral one to one. No chance of a leak.
I'm irresistibly reminded of Ian Blair's famous comment on David Blunkett's untrustworthiness.
'There were three of us in those meetings, me, him and the dog. And it wasn't the dog briefing against me.'
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Whenever I mention my voluntary work, my 84 yo mother asks me how much I get paid. She's always done this.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
And is that in addition to the 24/7 duties involved in caring for e.g. my father? Or could we increase my pension to the number of hours actually worked?
There would of course be exemptions. You can’t write an entire policy in one post.
So paid work I’d say for every 2 hours you can drop 1 volunteering hour (ie your work load never goes above 32 hours). Your caring responsibilities I would treat in a similar way.
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
Metafrolickly speaking.
I get that. But it’s a good example of why politicos are so careful
***
“Next minute slap them around the chops”
Starmer aide threatens female voters
Undermines PM’s initiative on domestic violence
***
I'm totally alive to that. My advice to him was given in a private oral one to one. No chance of a leak.
He hasn’t got the results from the focus group back yet
The answer I hope he gave was, "piss off it's none of your business". That's how I'd be advising him. Sharpen up those comms. Surprise people. One minute, charm personified, next minute slap them around the chops.
How’s that zero tolerance for domestic violence campaign going?
Metafrolickly speaking.
I get that. But it’s a good example of why politicos are so careful
***
“Next minute slap them around the chops”
Starmer aide threatens female voters
Undermines PM’s initiative on domestic violence
***
I'm totally alive to that. My advice to him was given in a private oral one to one. No chance of a leak.
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
Gullibly swallowing every conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence. I blame the chemtrails.
I think we need to get them off the keyboard and learning a craft. Something that requires skill and concentration and leaves no time for musings about Islam having no place in the West.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
Full time minimum wage is now about £24,000 a year in the UK, double the state pension of £12,000 a year
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
If it is a requirement then it it is not voluntary, is 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?
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
Full time minimum wage is now about £24,000 a year in the UK, double the state pension of £12,000 a year
That minimum wage figure is a huge driver of inflation. You basically embrace last year's inflation as next years.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Can't say I've heard of 6, 11, 12, and 13.
I can sympathise with 12 and 13, because I've no clue who they are either, but I'm surprised you've never heard of Fred 'The Shred' Goodwin, CEO of RBS when it went bellyup in 2008.
Sunil should have heard of 12 because as well as inventing British AI before we sold him off to the Americans, Demis Hassabis won a Nobel Prize for protein folding and Sunil claims to be a biochemist.
Here’s my list. I couldn’t keep it to 25, expanded to 30.
KCIII QEII Duke of Sussex Tony Blair Gordon Brown David Cameron George Osborne Boris Johnson Nigel Farage Jeremy Corbyn Peter Mandelson Dominic Cummings Nicola Sturgeon Adele Coldplay Amy Winehouse Norman Foster JK Rowling Christopher Nolan Simon Cowell Mark Rylance Daniel Craig Ian McKellen Maggie Smith Ricky Gervais Russell T Davies David Beckham Lewis Hamilton Freddie Flintoff Demis Hassabis
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
Most social media is drek. My daughters have moved (mostly) to subscribing to some podcasts, with TikTok for brainless fun.
Well done them. But you know what I mean about the pop right space. It's very meagre in spirit, knowledge, humour and understanding. Nobody is getting themselves a personal upgrade through time spent there.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
National Service for younger pensioners?
That's an interesting idea, and helps avoid the cliff edge effect some people experience when retiring suddenly.
I would say have accredited organisations and then let people do what they want.
Anything from working in a charity shop to helping Keep Britain Tidy on a litter picking campaign.
Minimal involvement from central government.
I'm far from a low state libertarian kind of chap, but even though we now expect more from government, it does feel like there are lots of situations where there really is no need for government to get very involved beyond maybe setting some frameworks.
Here’s my list. I couldn’t keep it to 25, expanded to 30.
KCIII QEII Duke of Sussex Tony Blair Gordon Brown David Cameron George Osborne Boris Johnson Nigel Farage Jeremy Corbyn Peter Mandelson Dominic Cummings Nicola Sturgeon Adele Coldplay Amy Winehouse Norman Foster JK Rowling Christopher Nolan Simon Cowell Mark Rylance Daniel Craig Ian McKellen Maggie Smith Ricky Gervais Russell T Davies David Beckham Lewis Hamilton Freddie Flintoff Demis Hassabis
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
Presumably that required booking significant hours to more than one client. Have any of them been reimbursed?
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
Hate to say it, but dude jumped his shark.
Bro does know what his audience (decrepit right wing c-nts) likes (fucking drivel that reinforces their moronic prejudices) and serves it up to them. Can't hate the hustle.
I know the Telegraph audience is likely to be quite old, but I have to think even there a lot of readers will not be very familiar with Zulu.
I mean, I like Zulu and am only 40ish, but I'm a weirdo.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
New Statesman list of the 25 Brits who have defined the century so far is interesting, and provocative. In ascending order:
25 Amy Winehouse 24 Nicola Sturgeon 23 Norman Foster 22 Liz Truss 21 Sadiq Khan 20 Doreen Lawrence 19 Ricky Gervais 18 Gary Lineker 17 Rebekah Brooks 16 Tracey Emin 15 Simon Cowell 14 George Osborne 13 Tim Stokely 12 Demis Hassabis 11 Fred the Shred 10 Prince Harry 9 Hilary Mantel 8 Lee Rigby 7 Boris Johnson 6 Maggie Oliver 5 Danny Boyle 4 Jeremy Corbyn 3 Tony Blair 2 Nigel Farage 1 J K Rowling
Hmm.
Such lists are always kind of hilarious, there's not really any practical way to quantify it, so the best part of finding the most out there inclusion or odd ranking.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
Presumably that required booking significant hours to more than one client. Have any of them been reimbursed?
Some legal aid was repaid, according to the story linked earlier.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
That's a challenging number, congratulations. I love a bit of karaoke, I'm MCing the karaoke again at our local next week. My go-to is Just a Gigolo by David Lee Roth, but I also like doing Robbie Williams' Angels and Killing in the Name by Rage Against the Machine. I like All Too Well by Taylor Swift too, it's such an amazing song although it doesn't really work in a male register, the voice tends to get a bit lost in the mix. I would love to have a better vocal range, I'm not strong enough in my upper register to sing a lot of pop songs.
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
The debate on the right is all 'has the state become ungovernable?' 'Was it the Northcote Trevelyan Act?' 'Should Blair have removed the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint Judges?' 'Do we need a Great Reform Act for the 21st century'.
The debate on the centre'left seems to be - 'Ur hur hur look at their awful clothes and Dad dancing'. It's a bit like Mitchell and Webb, except it's 'Are we the stupid ones?'.
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
If it is a requirement then it it is not voluntary, is it?
Even he wouldn't bother to steal the actual desk I'd think - thought he might carve his name into it.
A replica is definitely his style.
Maybe that's the Hail Mary option for Starmer to try and rescue a good relationship with Trump - give him a gift of a replica of one of the State carriages. He would have had a ride in one during the state visit.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
I’m assuming the £69k is the bonus which would put her on £17.5k
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
Presumably that required booking significant hours to more than one client. Have any of them been reimbursed?
They reimbursed £90k to the government so it may be a single client firm. Although you wonder why the government wouldn’t bring the role in house
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
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Whenever I mention my voluntary work, my 84 yo mother asks me how much I get paid. She's always done this.
I’m looking at voluntary work but it’s not always easy to match the work with the person.
Or even if they want you.
Next year I’m looking at offering voluntary support to Gateshead country parks
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
I’m assuming the £69k is the bonus which would put her on £17.5k
Perhaps she was part time?
But that makes the bonus scheme even worse because she'd need to be billing a larger multiple of her working week.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
When was UKIP founded?
Never 'eard of 'em. They won't amount to anythink.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
When was UKIP founded?
That perhaps says more about the need to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP. Using UK sounded more modern and less threatening.
Kemi Badenoch: "I don’t do karaoke. But I do like it when everyone starts singing Last Christmas"
People who won't do karaoke are emotionally stunted cowards who can't be trusted with anything.
My default karaoke number is Don't Wanna Miss a Thing by Aerosmith.
That's a challenging number, congratulations. I love a bit of karaoke, I'm MCing the karaoke again at our local next week. My go-to is Just a Gigolo by David Lee Roth, but I also like doing Robbie Williams' Angels and Killing in the Name by Rage Against the Machine. I like All Too Well by Taylor Swift too, it's such an amazing song although it doesn't really work in a male register, the voice tends to get a bit lost in the mix. I would love to have a better vocal range, I'm not strong enough in my upper register to sing a lot of pop songs.
My karaoke go-tos are It's Not Unusual and The Gambler.
And yes, I pass this on purely to cue up the meme.
This is where I would argue the benefit of the unreasonable number of hours each year most reading this on New Year's Eve spend on PB.
It's full of a wide range of viewpoints. And you can't filter the ones you don't like out like you can on X or Reddit or whatever else people use.
You are therefore much less likely to end falling down an alt-right or alt-left rabbit hole than you find elsewhere on the internet. While being informed of differing viewpoints.
Or course the author above is now speaking to a lower class of audience (Telegraph and New Statesmen readers) than he was on here, so he can write whatever dribble he fancies unchallenged.
Excellent last 2 paras from SeanT in his article 'Zulu, then, represents something we have lost: a Left-wing sensibility that could also love its country; a socialist aesthetic that could see the proud virtues of Britishness and the British people. Which makes it a sad contrast with the modern Left, which is mulish, hectoring, and relentless, and about as subtle as a hippo on the harpsichord.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
It is utterly extraordinary. But presumably the government has an asset register that keeps track of these things…
Mar-a-lago should perhaps ultimately be requisitioned by the federal government as the official warm-weather residence of the President.
The original owners (Majorie Post and EF Hutton) left it to the US government for that purpose but the government returned it to the Post Foundation who then sold it to Trump
The tribunal found that Ms Ahmed acted dishonestly and without integrity in recording time against matters where she had not and could not have completed the work claimed,” Mr Kyriacou said in the judgment.
“In so doing she had failed to uphold public trust and confidence in the profession.
How on earth would that damage the reputation of the profession? It's like a senior figure at the Post Office claiming defamation for being accused of perjury.
To be honest when I read that I thought it was rather harsh in her circumstances and a formal warning would have been fairer
She is clearly an idoot
The firm uncovered her erroneous hours in April 2022 and told her to stop overstating how much work she had done.
But she was dismissed on June 30 that year after she continued to exaggerate her hours.
But also worth noting that her employers paid back £98,000 to tax payers based on her hourly charge out rate
Committing an obvious fraud that was common enough that they used it as movie plot (several) argues idiocy.
From the story: Ms Ahmed aimed to reach the highest bonus tier (400 per cent of salary), potentially earning £69,300.
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
I’m assuming the £69k is the bonus which would put her on £17.5k
Perhaps she was part time?
But that makes the bonus scheme even worse because she'd need to be billing a larger multiple of her working week.
Alternatively there may have been a cap on payouts (“up to 409% subject to a maximum of”)
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
And we have been the "Royaume Uni" in Eurovision since the 1950s. (I have a theory that many of our points accidentally went to "Roumanie" in the past)
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
When was UKIP founded?
That perhaps says more about the need to avoid being tarred with the same brush as the BNP. Using UK sounded more modern and less threatening.
...which is kind of the point. It preceded the GFA. And I'm pretty sure there were others.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
MC Hammer? Didn't know Arm and Hammer was named after him.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
M C Hammer
(Arm and Hammer toothpaste, obviously)
Didn’t he get the order of friendship not the order of Lenin?
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
MC Hammer? Didn't know Arm and Hammer was named after him.
Edit. See Scott made that obscure connection too.
As far as I know the toothpaste name is just a coincidence. I just said that for the sake of the pun.
It's nearly over now, but I've found 2025 pretty depressing - not for me personally, but for 'society' as a whole. It's been epitomised by far too much acrimony, division and discord in public, and private, discourse. Although I'd be among the last to quote Thatcher, I hope that 2026 brings rather more harmony - and good humour and civilised public debate.
On that note, HNY to all, and may your dreams come true in 2026.
Interesting stat from John Burn-Murdoch on More Or Less this am: social media use is falling internationally except for Canada, USA and the old. Nothing less cool to the young I guess than seeing Trump boogying to Village People and Musk setting his algorithm to tell people how fab Musk is. There's hope yet..
Yes. You're into aesthetics, aren't you? Well there's the answer. The whole New Right thing is a style disaster. Forget the politics just look at the people.
The aesthetics are frequently a tell.
All you've got really isn't it?
The point (and it's a perfectly serious one) is that the people populating the space known as the 'online right' are quite palpably a bunch of wallies.
The debate on the right is all 'has the state become ungovernable?' 'Was it the Northcote Trevelyan Act?' 'Should Blair have removed the power of the Lord Chancellor to appoint Judges?' 'Do we need a Great Reform Act for the 21st century'.
The debate on the centre'left seems to be - 'Ur hur hur look at their awful clothes and Dad dancing'. It's a bit like Mitchell and Webb, except it's 'Are we the stupid ones?'.
But surely it's possible to leaven this weighty discourse with a touch of dry humour and empathy for the human condition? You never see that from the likes of 'just an ordinary white bloke who won't take this shit anymore'. Perhaps they could but choose not to, so dire they feel the state of the country, so low the spirits of its people, after decades of 'managed decline' with emphasis on the latter.
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.
So we could take a leaf and make it claimable at 81. Public finances transformed at a stroke. Silver bullet. It'd need cross party support though otherwise some populist charlatan would oppose it and they'd get elected.
Exactly what my dad did, he delayed claiming it until he was about 80,
Fine if you have alternative income and then live to at least 100, otherwise crazy.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
MC Hammer? Didn't know Arm and Hammer was named after him.
Edit. See Scott made that obscure connection too.
As far as I know the toothpaste name is just a coincidence. I just said that for the sake of the pun.
The question did lead me to this bit of AI BS though…
In summary, the phrase can refer to:
A specific historical individual honored by the Soviets.
A brand of artisanal honey and beeswax products.
Frank Bruno Honey was an American businessman awarded the Order of Lenin. Frank’s Honey is an entirely unconnected brand of organic honey…
To be fair - how could anyone in legal 'profession' be accused of damaging the reputation of their 'profession'. They are all shysters, crooks and shoe fetishists with no reputation to uphold.
Yes and given what they charge you it looks like they are all claiming they work 28 hours a day.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
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
That’s a thought. Should minimum wage and minimum pension be equal?
It might make the future creation of a universal basic income more comprehensible and concentrate the minds of younger people on the realities of aging on a limited income.
Basic state pension of £230 per week is equivalent to a 18.8 hour week on minimum wage
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
I thought United Kingdom replaced Great Britain in 1800 as the official name with the Act of Union of that year. Strictly speaking, United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Uncontroversial. Maybe just missing Paula Vennells.
What I find so funny about that is that Young Conservatives are still wearing suits today.
We were told 25 years ago when I was a student, rightly so, that was a real turn-off for recruiting young people to the cause - and yet people not yet born then are still doing it now.
People don't even wear suits at weddings and funerals these days
Maybe it's time for formal dress to come back into fashion again.
Men - in particular- are atrociously dressed these days.
It's like they can't be arsed.
Quietly slopes away......
I expect most of the men (and it is mostly men) who post on politicalbetting are usually atrociously dressed, being quite a nerdy site.
That doesn't mean they wouldn't by and large scrub up well, if they put in the effort.
No nerd here, barbour and denims for me. I spent far too many years wearing suits to work, though I have a nice one for the racing.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
M C Hammer
(Arm and Hammer toothpaste, obviously)
Didn’t he get the order of friendship not the order of Lenin?
Lenin not a big one on friendship? Given who his mates were I cannot say I'm surprised.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
I thought United Kingdom replaced Great Britain in 1800 as the official name with the Act of Union of that year. Strictly speaking, United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland.
Anyhow I have always called it United Kingdom.
Officially it was the "Kingdom of Great Britain", before the Union with Ireland.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g4qq8x0e8o
"GP surgery suspended over serious safety breaches"
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
Cut 7, 8, 10, 12, 13… gut bored at this point
I blame the chemtrails.
That's an interesting idea, and helps avoid the cliff edge effect some people experience when retiring suddenly.
It's full of a wide range of viewpoints. And you can't filter the ones you don't like out like you can on X or Reddit or whatever else people use.
You are therefore much less likely to end falling down an alt-right or alt-left rabbit hole than you find elsewhere on the internet. While being informed of differing viewpoints.
Or course the author above is now speaking to a lower class of audience (Telegraph and New Statesmen readers) than he was on here, so he can write whatever dribble he fancies unchallenged.
***
“Next minute slap them around the chops”
Starmer aide threatens female voters
Undermines PM’s initiative on domestic violence
***
Anything from working in a charity shop to helping Keep Britain Tidy on a litter picking campaign.
Minimal involvement from central government.
It’s a recognition that you get the state pension but should make a contribution to society in return plus the mental and physical benefits of keeping active and engaged
'There were three of us in those meetings, me, him and the dog. And it wasn't the dog briefing against me.'
She's always done this.
So paid work I’d say for every 2 hours you can drop 1 volunteering hour (ie your work load never goes above 32 hours). Your caring responsibilities I would treat in a similar way.
Similar health will be an exemption etc.
TRUMP STOLE THE DESK
https://x.com/glenn_tunes/status/2006337721225433423
KCIII
QEII
Duke of Sussex
Tony Blair
Gordon Brown
David Cameron
George Osborne
Boris Johnson
Nigel Farage
Jeremy Corbyn
Peter Mandelson
Dominic Cummings
Nicola Sturgeon
Adele
Coldplay
Amy Winehouse
Norman Foster
JK Rowling
Christopher Nolan
Simon Cowell
Mark Rylance
Daniel Craig
Ian McKellen
Maggie Smith
Ricky Gervais
Russell T Davies
David Beckham
Lewis Hamilton
Freddie Flintoff
Demis Hassabis
First of all, if £70k is her salary plus 400 per cent bonus, then she'd surely have been below minimum wage rates on £14k. Second, what numpty designs a bonus scheme that only pays out fully if you work more than 24 hours a day?
The tribunal should strike the entire firm off, and then itself.
I mean, I like Zulu and am only 40ish, but I'm a weirdo.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
The debate on the centre'left seems to be - 'Ur hur hur look at their awful clothes and Dad dancing'. It's a bit like Mitchell and Webb, except it's 'Are we the stupid ones?'.
Maybe that's the Hail Mary option for Starmer to try and rescue a good relationship with Trump - give him a gift of a replica of one of the State carriages. He would have had a ride in one during the state visit.
Perhaps she was part time?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/resolute-desk-moved-to-mar-a-lago/
Or even if they want you.
Next year I’m looking at offering voluntary support to Gateshead country parks
So wish you all, each and every one, a great evening and happy new year and see you on the other side.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWSe2SoVwZs
Appropriate.
It doesn't matter how poor your vocal range is if you belt out London Calling with enough chutzpah.
To see how, imagine the horror of a modern-day left-wing version of Zulu. It would turn the British defenders into evil gargoyles, and likely make the Zulus valiantly bi-curious. And my Dad would not eagerly watch it 194 times.'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/12/31/i-hate-to-say-it-but-zulu-is-a-left-wing-film/
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
Henry Ford perhaps?
(I have a theory that many of our points accidentally went to "Roumanie" in the past)
(Arm and Hammer toothpaste, obviously)
Didn't know Arm and Hammer was named after him.
Edit. See Scott made that obscure connection too.
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
Don't think Weatherfields finest would cut it.
On that note, HNY to all, and may your dreams come true in 2026.
In summary, the phrase can refer to:
A specific historical individual honored by the Soviets.
A brand of artisanal honey and beeswax products.
Frank Bruno Honey was an American businessman awarded the Order of Lenin. Frank’s Honey is an entirely unconnected brand of organic honey…
Jade Goody
Michelle Mone
Jared O’Mara
Russell Brand
Bonnie Blue
John Darwin
Liz Truss
Katie Price’s son Harvey
Camila Batmanghelidjh
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor
Fred Goodwin
Pete Doherty
Henry Bolton
Nadine Dorries
Phillip Schofield
Shamima Begum
Harold Shipman
Carl Beech
Max Clifford
Marc Francois
Sally Bercow
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-logo-flying-the-flag-for-uk-aid
Anyhow I have always called it United Kingdom.