Skip to content

Voters believe the magic money tree exists – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,014
edited 3:53PM in General
Voters believe the magic money tree exists – politicalbetting.com

Given suggestions the Government should go further in subsidising bills again because of the conflict in Iran we wanted to look at what sort of govt interventions/policies were/weren't affordable. 50% think govt could subsidise bills to stop the impact of the war, 38% disagree

Read the full story here

«134

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,959
    edited 3:54PM
    First?
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    First?

    Well you would be given you posted the article..
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 58,545
    Third
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 49,546
    edited 4:04PM
    What you support is affordable because it's a moral imperative or will save money in the long term and what you don't support is unaffordable because there's no magic money tree.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 63,588
    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.

    PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.

    It's pretty simple.
    If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.

    And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).

    If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
    Or not.

    Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath.
    https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489

    Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
    Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.

    That said...

    Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.

    The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
    They surrendered after the Americans allowed the Emperor to stay as nominal head of state. That concession only came after the second bomb.
    The Emperor voted to end the war *before* the Americans announced that they might or might not keep the Emperor.
    You are correct, and I am wrong - the Brynes Note was the 11th, and the vote was the 10th.

    For some reason, I thought they were the other way around.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 60,625
    Well I’m expecting the price of petrol to come down next month.

    How’s about you guys?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 22,326
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    First?

    No cheating just because it Eid
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present

    On the Triple lock - this points out the problem.

    We need the OBR to put an appropriate delay between retail and wage inflation so that there is a suitable gain in the OBR’s budget model if you destroy the lock. At the moment it doesn’t exist so there is no benefit in destroying it
    theProle said:



    There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.

    The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.

    The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.

    As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)

    This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!

    * "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    edited 4:12PM
    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 31,710
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present

    On the contrary I think folk are very well aware of how serious this is going to be.
    Far more than they were over Ukraine.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    rcs1000 said:

    Malmesbury said:

    rcs1000 said:

    tlg86 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    Gardenwalker said:

    Commentary on here seem pretty quiet about the economic impact of the war in Iran.

    PB, too, has been successfully hijacked by Farage’s ability to set the media agenda.

    It's pretty simple.
    If the war isn't over soon, it's pretty likely the world economy will see an oil and gas shock without real precedent. It could make the 70s look like a blip.

    And the UK economy will be screwed for another decade (at least).

    If it's over by next week, then we might be fine.
    Or not.

    Trump casually threatens to use nuclear weapons to end the war "in two seconds" while sitting right next to the Prime Minister of Japan—the only country to ever suffer an atomic bombing. The host calls him a complete sociopath.
    https://x.com/FurkanGozukara/status/2034797512712753489

    Unusual take - the atomic bombs on Japan saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
    Had it been necessary for the US to invade, then there would have been hundreds of thousands of US casualties, and many more Japanese casualities. In addition, there might have been millions dead from starvation, given the blockade of the islands and the failure of the rice crop that year.

    That said...

    Japan and the US were already in negotiations, and the declaration of war by the Soviet Union had tipped the senior Japanese leadership into a desperate funk. The official US Strategic Bombing Survey in 1946 concluded that the war would have ended on substantially the same terms, even without the atomic bomb. But then again, one might add, they would say that.

    The clue is in the fact that they didn't surrender after the first.
    They surrendered after the Americans allowed the Emperor to stay as nominal head of state. That concession only came after the second bomb.
    The Emperor voted to end the war *before* the Americans announced that they might or might not keep the Emperor.
    You are correct, and I am wrong - the Brynes Note was the 11th, and the vote was the 10th.

    For some reason, I thought they were the other way around.
    Various people pushing "it wasn't the bomb, it was The Russians/The Emperor staying/The Japanese Just gave up" narratives have got into a lot of the secondary histories.

    The reason for the attempted coup was that the Emperor announced that he was prepared to sacrifice the Imperial System in the surrender. As in, not just himself abdicating (unthinkable) but setting fire to the version of Shinto pushed by the nationalists. To them, this was tantamount to declaring the Japanese Race dead.

    That and the fact that he was AOK with war crimes trials for the all the Head Sheds (including himself).
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    eek said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present

    On the Triple lock - this points out the problem.

    We need the OBR to put an appropriate delay between retail and wage inflation so that there is a suitable gain in the OBR’s budget model if you destroy the lock. At the moment it doesn’t exist so there is no benefit in destroying it
    theProle said:



    There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.

    The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.

    The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.

    As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)

    This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!

    * "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.

    I suspect the OBR will be needed to address the serious nature of this issue with no easy answers
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 58,368
    https://x.com/saul_sadka/status/2035009739768127660

    It’s starting to look like this hunch was correct and that the IRGC, in a desperate attempt to set the region on fire and rally jihadists behind them, is trying to blow up the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount. This cluster munition flew directly over Al-Aqsa and landed just 200 meters away. This shell would have destroyed the domes. This seems to be their plan. It is the only possibile reason they are repeatedly targeting the Old City of Jerusalem. There are no military targets there, and most of the population is Muslim.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    dixiedean said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present

    On the contrary I think folk are very well aware of how serious this is going to be.
    Far more than they were over Ukraine.
    Not sure and even on here

    Though the increased petrol and diesels prices will be noticed as I did today
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,321
    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    Yeah. I’m thinking a society governed like Iain M Banks’ Culture might actually not be bad. I for one welcome our new AI overlords.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    Once upon a time you could slowly educate people in how the real world worked. Now that a lot of people get their news from Social media and GBeebies there will be no way to educate them that the magic money tree doesn’t exist especially when they only see a tiny bit of it
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    edited 4:21PM
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it. Ironically Green voters are most opposed to keeping the triple lock but even they are about 50% for keeping it and Polanski is still nowhere near becoming PM.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    This is heading out of any governments ability to control matters and anyway the next election is 3 years away

    My wife and I benefit from the triple lock and it is not sustainable

    Indeed you need to brace yourself for shocks you will not like

    Change is coming and fast
  • Jim_the_LurkerJim_the_Lurker Posts: 272
    edited 4:26PM
    I really don’t know whether the respondents to that polling are stupid or that the questions are simply stupid. Probably more the latter. Polling like this reveals more about personal preferences rather than their understanding (or lack of understanding) of Government finances. Arguably the most honest answer for those questions is “don’t know” or more appropriately “it depends.”

    But it is not to say that some of those things can’t be done. As we know the pandemic-era spending effectively ended / reduced homelessness for a period and paid wages of those unable to work due to closed businesses. Government made those decisions because the failure to do so would have led to, arguably, worse outcomes. But there are implications of spending other people’s money in that way - and much of that constrains the policies that the current Government can or cannot enact.

    I guess the worse thing about the Government actions during Covid or the last energy crisis or even the triple lock is it has proved that there sort of is a “magic money tree” - and shrill campaigning (or cynical pandering to client electorates) can really put the pressure on. But like all magic it is just a trick, someone pays eventually.

    Politics is about priorities and you could prioritise defence spending over the ending homelessness, the old over the young, etc. But you can’t do all of it, and I guess I wish our politicians (and media) could be honest about the trade offs.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,687
    edited 4:28PM
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    eek said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    It is an economic nightmare and the public have not woken up to just how serious this is

    The magic money tree is over and todays bond markets shows that it is not possible to borrow anymore

    Starmer and Reeves face a nightmare scenario and, unfair as it is, will get the flack

    Labour would be crazy to change leaders at present

    On the Triple lock - this points out the problem.

    We need the OBR to put an appropriate delay between retail and wage inflation so that there is a suitable gain in the OBR’s budget model if you destroy the lock. At the moment it doesn’t exist so there is no benefit in destroying it
    theProle said:



    There was an interesting podcast from someone (IFS?) about this a few months back.

    The problem with the triple lock is primarily that it's calculated annually without any smoothing. If inflation hits 10% one year, and wages also grow at 10% the same year, the triple lock goes up 10%. If inflation goes up 10% one year and wages 10% the following year, then the triple lock goes up 21%. despite inflation and wages having only gone up 10%.

    The effect is also really difficult to model into the future, as not only do you have to predict the broad trends of the future (difficult), but you also have to know how closely wage spikes will lag inflation (virtually impossible). If you get a full blown wage-price spiral going, the triple lock doesn't outpace either by much, whereas a short sharp shock in inflation, followed by a matching spike in wage growth 12 months later rockets the triple lock upwards.

    As a result, most of the government modeling of the triple lock assumes that wage growth and inflation move together within the same financial year, which makes the triple lock seem fairly inexpensive. (The more I discover about treasury modeling, the more I realise we're governed by imbeciles.)

    This in turn means that if the chancellor cans the triple lock, on paper it doesn't save much money, so they can't do what all recent chancellors are won't to do as soon as any "extra" cash arrives, and immediately rush off and spend loads more (or if one is very lucky, even cut taxes a little), as the OBR won't credit them with any extra "headroom*" for binning the triple lock.

    Meanwhile, out in the real world, with all it's current volatility, the state pension keeps rocketing upwards. But that's different, because the modeling keeps saying that won't happen in the future....!

    * "Headroom" - the tiny difference between the obscene amount the chancellor is borrowing, and the obscene amount of borrowing at which it is judged the bond market will completely take fright.

    I suspect the OBR will be needed to address the serious nature of this issue with no easy answers
    I've run the numbers on this, a true triple lock would result in a state pension of either £10937 or £8382 (Depending on which one the applicant is eligible for) rather than £12,535.73 or £9,606.74 (The projected April figures I had at the time of the calculation...). The use of the ratchet is worth about 0.9% real terms each year compared to a true triple lock (Which would currently be aligning with wages).
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,989
    I'm thankful not to be one of those having to make choices for the country. I know pensioners who are already finding it impossible to make ends meet, fulltime working people ditto, longterm sick/disabled ditto.

    I know far too many longterm sick/disabled people who are utterly genuine 'cases', in some cases whole families of them. Not ill-wishing anybody but sometimes it seems our society has turned Darwin on its head.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 63,588
    Sandpit said:

    Well I’m expecting the price of petrol to come down next month.

    How’s about you guys?

    In Dubai or in the UK/US?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,508
    edited 4:33PM
    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    edited 4:34PM
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    This is heading out of any governments ability to control matters and anyway the next election is 3 years away

    My wife and I benefit from the triple lock and it is not sustainable

    Indeed you need to brace yourself for shocks you will not like

    Change is coming and fast
    Change is not coming when most voters are pro triple lock unless change in terms of loss of seat of most MPs of any party leader who proposes scrapping it
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,687
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 16,313
    Afternoon all :)

    Away from the alarmism from some on here, it's the South Australian State Election overnight.

    Over on our sister site, Pollbludger.net, they are talking not about TACTICAL voting but STRATEGIC voting.

    I like that - sounds much classier.

    Denmark votes next Tuesday - the latest polls "suggest" the bloc of centre-left voters such as "Red" have the edge over the bloc of centre-right parties known as "Blue" (in Denmark, they are known as Arbejde and Borgerlig or Worker and Bourgeois if you enjoy your 20th century class definitions).

    Even the pro-Blue Epinion pollster has a one point lead for the "Red" bloc and it's five points with Megafon and Voxmeter.

    The two big winners look to be the Socialisitke Folkeparti and the Dansk Folkeparti (the Folkeparti is the only thing they have in common).
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 22,828
    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    The way the question is posed sort of encapsulates the problem: "if they really want to."

    This frames the question of whether to spend tens to hundreds of billions of pounds as a question of will and motivation, rather than whether the economy can support that spending, or what the tradeoffs might be if you choose to spend on one thing and not another, and what taxes you would have to increase to pay for it.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,959
    Hargreaves Lansdown customers locked out of accounts amid market turmoil

    Investors unable to trade as markets react to Middle East tensions

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/hargreaves-lansdown-hit-tech-glitch-amid-market-turmoil/
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
  • PhilPhil Posts: 3,199
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Hargreaves Lansdown customers locked out of accounts amid market turmoil

    Investors unable to trade as markets react to Middle East tensions

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/hargreaves-lansdown-hit-tech-glitch-amid-market-turmoil/

    Didn’t expect the private equity buyout of HL to reach the obvious endpoint quite this quickly, but there it is.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    As said often enough before that Means testing anything is blooming stupid unless you have an easy to use dataset (such as council tax bands) to work from.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 87,361
    LibDems seem to be about the most financially realistic; Labour and Greens vie for the title of top fiscal fantasists.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 21,508
    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,687
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
    How on earth are you planning on administering that ? Does every pensioner in the land either have to submit a P60 to HMRC or complete a self assesment form ?!?

    Even if they did do you then adjust the pension for the following year based on the prior year's tax return ? And if you're adjusting for the triple lock element, how are you uprating the higher rate paying pensioner's pensions - what's your mechanism for that.

    This quite honestly is the maddest idea ever.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 80,687
    edited 4:41PM
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Hargreaves Lansdown customers locked out of accounts amid market turmoil

    Investors unable to trade as markets react to Middle East tensions

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/investing/stocks-shares/hargreaves-lansdown-hit-tech-glitch-amid-market-turmoil/

    I've got into my HL account just fine tbh.

    I mean today's -1.66% change on my LISA value isn't pretty but...
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 22,828
    eek said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    Once upon a time you could slowly educate people in how the real world worked. Now that a lot of people get their news from Social media and GBeebies there will be no way to educate them that the magic money tree doesn’t exist especially when they only see a tiny bit of it
    What's striking is how quickly even the most committed people to unreality - newly elected Reform councillors - were able to adjust when forced to confront the reality (in that case, of the dire state of local government finances, and the lack of easy answers).

    This suggests that an addition to our democratic system, that involves ordinary people (because politicians aren't trusted) in a deliberative fashion, still had a fair chance if leading to broadly acceptable tradeoffs being decided on. Things like using the jury system to populate citizens assemblies, or a reformed House of Lords.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,959
    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 18,058
    AnneJGP said:

    I'm thankful not to be one of those having to make choices for the country. I know pensioners who are already finding it impossible to make ends meet, fulltime working people ditto, longterm sick/disabled ditto.

    I know far too many longterm sick/disabled people who are utterly genuine 'cases', in some cases whole families of them. Not ill-wishing anybody but sometimes it seems our society has turned Darwin on its head.

    I think it's down to a whole range of things - lack of job opportunities, poor education outcomes, bad diet and lifestyle, living in a country with little sunlight, ingrained poverty, bad housing. Areas blighted with long term inactivity tend to be areas also blighted by deindustrialisation. And before that blighted by industrialisation! My brother in law and sister in law are GPs in Yorkshire and the medical profession has a term for it - shit life syndrome. Turning this around isn't easy, I don't know how you do it.
    It's interesting you know so many people in this situation - does that reflect where you live, I wonder? Other than my aunt who has MS and the partner of a friend who has long Covid I don't know anyone who is long term sick, I guess we all exist inside our own bubbles.
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 6,090
    edited 4:50PM
    My answer to a lot of these questions is "it depends on how you structure it".

    If we were pitched into another pandemic would we need something like furlough? I'm sure we would, and we would borrow to do so. Would we do it exactly the same? I'm guessing not.

    I'm a UBI enthusiast in principle, but not as a straight give away with no quid pro quo. UBI would have to be balanced by lower tax thresholds applied to non-UBI earnings and I would re-coup to some degree as well by taxing at a higher rate for a period of time those who accessed various UBI elements (this would resemble student loan repayments structured as a graduate tax). Then I'd treat things like child benefit, student fees and the state pension as UBI elements, renaming them, and tax other earnings, e.g. private pension earnings accordingly. You may find that state pension, which alone is not making anyone rich, can be on an escalator for a few years yet by taxing more higher up the range.

    Subsidising energy bills because of Iran. We're already there - some limited support for oil heating is welcome, perhaps a cap on the tax take as fuel prices exceed a certain limit. Structure it right, don't break the bank.

    The only one on that list that is worded to give no wriggle room is "Forgive the Student Loans.....". Perhaps you can structure something, but forgive?, afraid not.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    This is heading out of any governments ability to control matters and anyway the next election is 3 years away

    My wife and I benefit from the triple lock and it is not sustainable

    Indeed you need to brace yourself for shocks you will not like

    Change is coming and fast
    Change is not coming when most voters are pro triple lock unless change in terms of loss of seat of most MPs of any party leader who proposes scrapping it
    You do not get it

    There is no money and no election for 3 years

    Lots of unpopular measures will be forced on the government
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
    No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,008
    Nigelb said:

    LibDems seem to be about the most financially realistic; Labour and Greens vie for the title of top fiscal fantasists.

    The question is can they if really want to. The answer to all the scenarios is an unequivocal yes, an irrelevant yes, but an unequivocal one. An irrelevant one as the political and economic costs of implementation need to be considered.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
    This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day

    You are not facing upto this crisis

    Everything has changed
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    edited 4:54PM
    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
    No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
    Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.

    Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway

    My point is there are major benefits for leaving NI as it is - heck imagine you retire a 60 and start drawing down from your pension pot - currently you would pay 20% income tax on the money but not NI - with your scheme that “pensioner” is paying 28% tax on his pension spending until the April after he gets his state pension
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 39,578
    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    This is the socialist dream in action, getting the majority of people dependent on government money.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
    This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day

    You are not facing upto this crisis

    Everything has changed
    They are interlinked, the Greens and Labour and to an extent the LDs will always prefer to increase tax on business and higher earners and property and shareowners than scrap the triple lock. The Tories and Reform prefer to cut spending on those on Universal Credit and on EDI schemes and scrap net zero etc than scrap the triple lock.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,859
    The data in the header seems a little unclear. Basically there is virtually no one thing a government can't fund if it truly wanted to. It may well be funding WWIII in time. But of course lots of things can only be afforded if, and only if, taxes rise and other expenditure is very painfully cut.

    Are people saying a government can afford multiple massive new costs simultaneously, or that a large individual cost can be met - if only by tax rises and other massive cuts?

    Can I be sure this proves wide belief in MMT beyond the membership of Labour and Greens?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
    How on earth are you planning on administering that ? Does every pensioner in the land either have to submit a P60 to HMRC or complete a self assesment form ?!?

    Even if they did do you then adjust the pension for the following year based on the prior year's tax return ? And if you're adjusting for the triple lock element, how are you uprating the higher rate paying pensioner's pensions - what's your mechanism for that.

    This quite honestly is the maddest idea ever.
    Well Labour have managed to remove WFA for pensioners earning £35k or over annually now, so it can be done
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    algarkirk said:

    The data in the header seems a little unclear. Basically there is virtually no one thing a government can't fund if it truly wanted to. It may well be funding WWIII in time. But of course lots of things can only be afforded if, and only if, taxes rise and other expenditure is very painfully cut.

    Are people saying a government can afford multiple massive new costs simultaneously, or that a large individual cost can be met - if only by tax rises and other massive cuts?

    Can I be sure this proves wide belief in MMT beyond the membership of Labour and Greens?

    In the same way that markets can stay irrational longer than you have money, MMT works until one day it suddenly doesn’t.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    Andy_JS said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    This is the socialist dream in action, getting the majority of people dependent on government money.
    That is the problem - the government doesn't have the money known as 'the magic money tree'
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
    NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 4,989
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/

    Is your journey really necessary?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
    No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
    Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.

    Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
    The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
    NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit
    Not now - it is not a hypothecated tax
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,321
    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
    NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit
    Nope the 1911 act introduced NI to pay for sickness insurance and unemployment benefit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    No. This is Vibe War.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 126,959
    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    As mentioned in the previous thread, hubris and arrogance.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    edited 5:06PM
    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
    How on earth are you planning on administering that ? Does every pensioner in the land either have to submit a P60 to HMRC or complete a self assesment form ?!?

    Even if they did do you then adjust the pension for the following year based on the prior year's tax return ? And if you're adjusting for the triple lock element, how are you uprating the higher rate paying pensioner's pensions - what's your mechanism for that.

    This quite honestly is the maddest idea ever.
    Well Labour have managed to remove WFA for pensioners earning £35k or over annually now, so it can be done
    If you are getting anything over the basic pension, you are paying tax, now.

    I'm proposing to lock the personal allowance together with the state pension, as well

    so

    1) If you have just the state pension and nothing else - no tax
    2) If you have the state pension and a bit more - you need to be paying tax, right now*. Under my plan, the tax would be exactly the same.
    3) If you have a state pension and stuff adding up to more than 50K - you are paying tax now. Under my proposal, you will be paying more tax

    *The pension is reaching the personal allowance very soon.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,008
    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Few people will remember that story so if this war ends the media could treat it as a new story.

    Which means that this war won’t end because the risk to Trump is too great
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 40,816
    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
    This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day

    You are not facing upto this crisis

    Everything has changed
    I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.

    The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,008
    eek said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Few people will remember that story so if this war ends the media could treat it as a new story.

    Which means that this war won’t end because the risk to Trump is too great
    Other countries are available if they decide the costs are too high in keeping this one going.......
  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    noneoftheabove said:

    eek said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Few people will remember that story so if this war ends the media could treat it as a new story.

    Which means that this war won’t end because the risk to Trump is too great
    Other countries are available if they decide the costs are too high in keeping this one going.......
    As the Telegraph reported in an article I linked to earlier Trump has launched attacks at 13 countries in the past 13 months (ie 1 a month).
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 58,545
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    This is the socialist dream in action, getting the majority of people dependent on government money.
    As opposed to the capitalist reality of the 25 richest people owning as much as the poorest 4 billion combined.
    There is plenty of money knocking around...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,859
    Malmesbury said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    HYUFD said:

    Pulpstar said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    Means testing the triple lock part is a particularly madness, the administrative cost would outweigh the actual nominal savings.
    No, just keep it for basic rate income tax paying pensioners and remove it for those pensioners whose incomes pay higher or additional rate income tax
    How on earth are you planning on administering that ? Does every pensioner in the land either have to submit a P60 to HMRC or complete a self assesment form ?!?

    Even if they did do you then adjust the pension for the following year based on the prior year's tax return ? And if you're adjusting for the triple lock element, how are you uprating the higher rate paying pensioner's pensions - what's your mechanism for that.

    This quite honestly is the maddest idea ever.
    Well Labour have managed to remove WFA for pensioners earning £35k or over annually now, so it can be done
    If you are getting anything over the basic pension, you are paying tax, now.

    I'm proposing to lock the personal allowance together with the state pension, as well

    so

    1) If you have just the state pension and nothing else - no tax
    2) If you have the state pension and a bit more - you need to be paying tax, right now*. Under my plan, the tax would be exactly the same.
    3) If you have a state pension and stuff adding up to more than 50K - you are paying tax now. Under my proposal, you will be paying more tax

    *The pension is reaching the personal allowance very soon.
    This simply illustrates the absurdity of requiring people to pay tax (at whatever rate) on income far below ordinary decent subsistence levels, at half the minimum or living wage, and well below what hundreds of thousands of households on benefits receive without being taxed at all.
    It is not great that a Labour government should be complicit in continuing this miserable state of affairs without any plan to ameliorate it.

  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,008
    eek said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    eek said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Few people will remember that story so if this war ends the media could treat it as a new story.

    Which means that this war won’t end because the risk to Trump is too great
    Other countries are available if they decide the costs are too high in keeping this one going.......
    As the Telegraph reported in an article I linked to earlier Trump has launched attacks at 13 countries in the past 13 months (ie 1 a month).
    You can't create as much peace as Trump without giving war a chance first.
  • FeersumEnjineeyaFeersumEnjineeya Posts: 5,191
    Nigelb said:

    LibDems seem to be about the most financially realistic; Labour and Greens vie for the title of top fiscal fantasists.

    No surprise then that the Lib Dems are doing worst in the polls. People don't like being told they can't have things.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 21,902
    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
    No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
    Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.

    Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
    The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
    Sensible in many ways. However, two things would follow.

    1 Better-off pensioners would pay more than now.
    2 The headline rate of income tax would be higher than now.

    Both of these are electorally as popular as being told to find a stick, sharpen it and then poke yourself in the eye with the sharp stick. (Sharp sticks and eye pokers were both cut in the coalition austerity round).

    The problem remains- we all sort of Intuit that fiscal rebalancing is needed in general, but not in particular.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,859
    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Casino_Royale said:

    I mean, I look at polls like this - and I sort of want to give up.

    This is the socialist dream in action, getting the majority of people dependent on government money.
    As opposed to the capitalist reality of the 25 richest people owning as much as the poorest 4 billion combined.
    Neither state of affairs described is inherent to the nature of socialism or capitalism. They involve specific policy choices by governments who can choose different if they wish within the constraints of properly governed economic systems.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 61,743
    Stuartinromford said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    I’m at a loss as to how 1 and 2 would work. The easiest way of achieving what you want is to rename NI and apply it to people who are below the pension age a - so you may as well keep NI out a plateau on it at £50,000 and increase income tax to 42%.

    The other issue that makes other changes impossible is that income tax is a delegated tax in Scotland an I think elsewhere (it just isn’t different in Wales and NI).
    You merge employee NI and IT

    That (at least in the short term) you create a new rate of basic tax for pensioners (below £50K income) that is the old IT rate - so they don't pay the NI extra.

    This is simple to administer, since HMRC has DOB on their systems.
    But we already have that with NI - you stop paying it on the April 6th after you get your state pension.

    So the easiest way to do what you want is to leave it as it is
    No. The point is that pensioners over 50K will be paying more tax. And all the others currently not paying employee NI.
    Which again could be done by removing the 2% employee NI rate that NI goes to after £967 a week on to income tax to make income tax 42%.

    Easily done and that 2% higher rate NI is a relatively recent invention anyway
    The idea is to remove employee NI from the board entirely. So no games to play avoiding NI.
    Sensible in many ways. However, two things would follow.

    1 Better-off pensioners would pay more than now.
    2 The headline rate of income tax would be higher than now.

    Both of these are electorally as popular as being told to find a stick, sharpen it and then poke yourself in the eye with the sharp stick. (Sharp sticks and eye pokers were both cut in the coalition austerity round).

    The problem remains- we all sort of Intuit that fiscal rebalancing is needed in general, but not in particular.
    It's about messaging

    1) You announce the abolition of Income Tax and Employee National Insurance
    2) You announce the Introduction of the Save The NHS, Protect Cute Kittens and Kick Racists In The Goolies Tax.
    3) Any opposition to the proposals is framed as you hate the NHS, you want to kill kittens and you like racists.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    edited 5:25PM
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
    NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit
    Nope the 1911 act introduced NI to pay for sickness insurance and unemployment benefit.
    Contributory state pensions have been in place in the UK since 1925, though yes we could use with having more social insurance to fund healthcare again as well like most OECD nations
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,776
    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    Nigelb said:

    LibDems seem to be about the most financially realistic; Labour and Greens vie for the title of top fiscal fantasists.

    No surprise then that the Lib Dems are doing worst in the polls. People don't like being told they can't have things.
    Or, people like being told they can't have the Lib Dems.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 16,859
    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Nothing prevents the media reporting it every day.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    Sean_F said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
    This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day

    You are not facing upto this crisis

    Everything has changed
    I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.

    The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
    But no political party is proposing scrapping it as it would make them unelectable.

    We are more likely to have a government propose a 100% higher rate and additional rate income tax, a massive increase in corporation tax, a mansion tax of 100% for expensive properties over £1 million or universal credit scrapped and replaced with foodbanks than the triple lock is to be scrapped
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 27,008
    algarkirk said:

    noneoftheabove said:

    DougSeal said:

    Did they not think this through before starting this shit?

    It happened pretty much the day the media started talking about a 13 year old girl accusing the US President of rape. I suspect the thinking was simply what can we do to change the headlines for the next month or two.
    Nothing prevents the media reporting it every day.
    Apart from Joe Public being more concerned about war and a global economic crash, Congress moving on from the Epstein investigations at least temporarily, and MAGA media barons. Otherwise, sure.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 55,631
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/

    Isle of Wight for me at Easter 🙂

  • eekeek Posts: 32,960
    edited 5:28PM
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Gallowgate said:

    HYUFD said:

    Malmesbury said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    As I keep saying -

    1) Merge employee NI And IT
    2) Protect the basic rate pensioners. Only those on 50K+ will pay more tax initially.
    3) Put all the old age benefits in a blender, and make the result taxable.
    4) quadruple lock - the pension is the personal allowance and the personal allowance is the pension. This means that for any pension increase the Chancellor will have to raise the personal allowance. Suddenly....

    Taxation is the best way to deal with this.
    1) NO, ringfence NI for the state pension and JSA only. Other proposals sensible
    If you ringfence NI for the state pension etc then Government will need to raise other taxes to account for the shortfall…

    And I imagine NI would need to increase on the regular to cover the liabilities
    No, increase NI for all workers to cover their state pensions and then you can cut income tax a bit as none of that would go for state pensions
    How do you “cover their state pensions” when you have no idea how much that will be in real terms in 30 years? NI has never been a defined contribution investment scheme.
    NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit
    Nope the 1911 act introduced NI to pay for sickness insurance and unemployment benefit.
    Contributory state pensions have been in place in the UK since 1925, though yes we could use with having more social insurance to fund healthcare again as well like most OECD nations
    You said NI was set up solely to fund state pensions and unemployment benefit - my point was that you were wrong there - which 2 seconds on google would have told you
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 13,321
    Foxy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/

    Isle of Wight for me at Easter 🙂

    Happy I live in East Kent and the continent is easily drivable
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 3,093
    edited 5:29PM
    So lunatic Trump and sleazy war criminal Netanyahu have the world to the brink of economic ruin. Do the right-wing shits who live on this blog still support this madness?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    edited 5:30PM
    Casino_Royale said:

    FeersumEnjineeya said:

    Nigelb said:

    LibDems seem to be about the most financially realistic; Labour and Greens vie for the title of top fiscal fantasists.

    No surprise then that the Lib Dems are doing worst in the polls. People don't like being told they can't have things.
    Or, people like being told they can't have the Lib Dems.
    It is a rubbish theory anyway given Davey backs keeping the triple lock, opposed the WFA cut, backed scrapping the 2 child benefit cap, opposed the family farm and business tax and opposed the mansion tax. The LDs are as cake for all as any other party, indeed more so than Kemi or Starmer and Reeves are
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 134,826
    edited 5:32PM
    To be fair Farage has said he might review the triple lock unlike any other main party leader but then Jenrick as his Treasury Spokesman ignored him and said he was committed to keeping the triple lock

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/02/18/triple-lock-is-up-for-debate-says-farage/
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 70,776
    HYUFD said:

    Sean_F said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    Big_G_NorthWales said:

    HYUFD said:

    So at least 50% or more of voters want to keep the triple lock and subsidise energy bills during the Iran War. Most voters from all parties want to keep the triple lock, though less than half of Reform voters want to subsidise energy bills. They are divided on increasing defence spending and not yet ready to believe a UBI is possible but not majority opposed and Green voters back it as do half of Labour voters.

    Most voters aren't that bothered about students though, more refusing to forgive student loans or bail out universities than not with Green voters again the main exception. Furlough is also not going to be believed as realistic either again

    It doesn't matter what voters want, and this is where Starmer and Reeves are about to come up against reality
    It does because voters elect their governments, as this poll proves the triple lock is untouchable, most voters from all parties want to retain it.

    At most Labour could get away with means testing it that is it
    Means testing the State Pension - that would go down way worse than killing the triple lock.

    Throw one big increase on the state pension and few would notice the lock has gone, announce means testing (in any form on any part) and your political party will be gone at the next election
    The Tories and LDs and now Reform could never means test it no as a large percentage of their voters are high earning pensioners.

    Labour or the Greens could as if they get any votes from over 65s it is normally only from poor pensioners
    This is not about politics but economics and the later will rule the day

    You are not facing upto this crisis

    Everything has changed
    I fully agree. I don't like the fact that I'm going to be working almost till the point that I die, if I want to enjoy a good standard of living; nor that I'm going to be paying a load of income tax, each year for the rest of my life. It's not where I expected to be, when I began my working life, 37 years ago. But, we are where we are.

    The triple lock is among the most worthless forms of government expenditure that exists. It is absolutely not a priority, right now.
    But no political party is proposing scrapping it as it would make them unelectable.

    We are more likely to have a government propose a 100% higher rate and additional rate income tax, a massive increase in corporation tax, a mansion tax of 100% for expensive properties over £1 million or universal credit scrapped and replaced with foodbanks than the triple lock is to be scrapped
    You still haven't understood about being electable

    There is no money so hard choices lie ahead, no more so than if you had maxed out your credit and ignored your bank manager to live within your means

  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 49,546
    Foxy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/

    Isle of Wight for me at Easter 🙂
    I can top that - Sheffield.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 65,776
    Foxy said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Book your staycations now.

    Airlines prepare to cancel flights to cope with jet fuel shortages

    Carriers consider options such as scrapping routes in parts of the world with less stable reserves

    Airlines are drawing up plans to cancel flights amid fears that jet fuel will dry up as the war in the Middle East drags on.

    Carriers such as Air France-KLM said they were considering options that could include cancelling routes in some parts of the world with less stable fuel reserves.

    While Europe currently has enough stocks to supply airlines in the next month or so, other countries are more dependent on Gulf flows and could see shortages sooner.

    There is particular concern over long-haul destinations where carriers might not be able to obtain fuel for return flights if the Iran war escalates, potentially leaving aircraft stranded.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/03/20/airlines-cancel-flights-cope-jet-fuel-shortage/

    Isle of Wight for me at Easter 🙂

    Me too.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 42,924
    Matt

    https://x.com/MattCartoonist/status/2035045902822326674?s=20
Sign In or Register to comment.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2026