Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Sure, but we didn't know then that we would have a pandemic, global financial crash and a series of major wars in a short space of time that paralysed our economy. Things change. What we thought we would be able to afford we can't now.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
In one way she is correct but she's missed the actuarial point.
The first pensions were set actuarially at just beyond life expectancy. So it would provide an income to those who lived beyond working age. As life expectancy increased there was little move to increase pension age to match. So as life expectancy increases you get the situation where you are on a pension for longer than your working life. Bad economics.
So since people never vote to be poorer, stop giving them the money in the first place and move pension age. Or tax pensioners to match the contributions they should have made actuarially but didn't.
BIB - My dad will reach 30 years retired from the police in May, after serving 30 years. He takes in over 4 grand a month all told.
How many get 30 years worth , certainly nowadays with age at 67 and going up to 70 , they will be rarer than rocking horse shit. Most people who actually worked for 50+ years will get back a fraction of what they paid. Even in USA they pay far better SS and tax free to boot , banana republics look after therir pensioners better than this shithole country.
I don't agree; I get my OAP, plus three workplace pensions, to which, of course, I contributed. Plus a savings plan I contributed to during my working life. On the last four I pay tax, which is fair enough; the OAP is roughly the same as the Personal Allowance. So far I've had 23 years worth of retired life, after a working life of 43 years. Seems fair enough to me.
Not so good if you were starting today at 67 and bit later when it is 70 though OKC. The rest is fact our pension is worst in developed world and unless you have good private pension income or none at all you will be poor. As soon as you get any private pension you are stuffed for all the extra pension credits and will be paying tax.
PS: You will pay tax on your state pension unless you are just counting that as matching your tax allowance, it goes in pot for tax unliek peopel who have pension and pension credits.
Yes; my OAP is roughly the same as my personal allowance. So I pay tax on all the others, but of course I got allowance for contributing to them....... the workplace ones anyway.
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
The US navy is blockading Iranian ports, trying to stop their oil getting out.
The Iranians are supposedly blocking the Straight, but quite a lot of traffic has been getting through, especially that not related to O&G or container trade.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
No NI should be ringfenced for the state pension and JSA
DAN HODGES reveals the SEVEN times Starmer has misled the House of Commons or broken ministerial code
Offence 1: On September 10, 2025, Starmer told the House that 'full due process was followed during (Mandelson's) appointment, as it is with all ambassadors'.
Offence 2: Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Starmer was asked by Kemi Badenoch if pressure had been leveraged on civil servants responsible for Mandelson's vetting, and other aspects of his appointment. He replied: 'No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.'
Offence 3: In the same session, Starmer claimed 'Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday'. He then read out a series of quotes that were selective, and deliberately tailored to giving the false impression that Robbins had denied pressure had been brought to bear.
Offence 4: In an interview published in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister again claimed Robbins had insisted no pressure was brought to bear over Mandelson's vetting.
Offence 5: On Sunday, it was reported that Starmer had breached the Ministerial Code by attending a meeting with Mandelson, then ambassador, with one of Mandelson's former clients, the defence contractor Palantir.
Offence 6: Last month, it was reported that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, had his mobile phone stolen on which were messages relating to Mandelson's appointment.
Offence 7: In February, Starmer gave a statement in which he pointedly blamed failings by security for Mandelson's appointment. 'Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again,' he said. 'I've already strengthened the due process, I think we need to look at the security vetting.' https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15770359/The-SEVEN-times-Starmer-misled-House.html
I've taken out Hodges' discussion of each point but that's the list, in case it is paywalled. I'm not sure there is no double counting!
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
The US navy is blockading Iranian ports, trying to stop their oil getting out.
The Iranians are supposedly blocking the Straight, but quite a lot of traffic has been getting through, especially that not related to O&G or container trade.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
But Hermer wasn’t working for the British State, he was going around Iraq finding people to make up lies about British soldiers so that he could vexatiously litigate against them.
The current Bill is aimed as bringing up the Northern Ireland Troubles all over again, after the IRA were (correctly IMHO) pardoned by the Good Friday Agreement.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
Can’t be a big price that his son is also called Charles and that’s who was interviewed
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
Burnham and Rayner would indeed make a useful pairing to replace Starmer.
But stark reality means that Burnham has to curb his ambition. There is no way for him to become an MP in time without close cooperation from Starmer, not only to step down before he is pushed but also to clear the way for Burnham as his successor.
So Rayner has to be the PM in that pairing, and Burnham the ennobled senior Cabinet minister serving as her Deputy PM with perhaps reponsibility for the regions, a similar role to that which John Prescott played to Blair. I remember how Labour successfully put Brown at the centre of the 2005 GE campaign given that he was so much more popular than Blair by then - a Rayner/Burnham combo could be similarly effective.
Burnham could formally remain as GM Metro Mayor while serving in the Cabinet, even though most of the work in GM would be done by his deputies.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
There is a sort of means testing for the pension already tbh, if tax thresholds remain frozen the gov't receives back first 20%, then 40% followed by all of the pension between £100k and £125.14K
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
I don't remember him being particularly polite. He once flew off the handle and was beastly to me when I'd simply replied approvingly to a ScottP post about some Brexit issue or other.
Burnham and Rayner would indeed make a useful pairing to replace Starmer.
But stark reality means that Burnham has to curb his ambition. There is no way for him to become an MP in time without close cooperation from Starmer, not only to step down before he is pushed but also to clear the way for Burnham as his successor.
So Rayner has to be the PM in that pairing, and Burnham the ennobled senior Cabinet minister serving as her Deputy PM with perhaps reponsibility for the regions, a similar role to that which John Prescott played to Blair. I remember how Labour successfully put Brown at the centre of the 2005 GE campaign given that he was so much more popular than Blair by then - a Rayner/Burnham combo could be similarly effective.
Burnham could formally remain as GM Metro Mayor while serving in the Cabinet, even though most of the work in GM would be done by his deputies.
Burnham made his choice when he choose being the Mayor over being an MP. That it is an issue now is a feature of that choice, not a bug.
Also I think the gov't sort of has to raise the personal allowance in line with the state pension or it turns into an administrative nightmare.
Thinking about it, raising the personal allowance in the budget prior to the election in line with the pension "triple locking it" so to speak could be good retail (Not that it'll do them much good) politics by Labour.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
But Hermer wasn’t working for the British State, he was going around Iraq finding people to make up lies about British soldiers so that he could vexatiously litigate against them.
I am not clever enough to be a lawyer but I am pretty sure that is libellous against Hermer.
It was Phil Shiner who was paying Iraqis to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
I don't remember him being particularly polite. He once flew off the handle and was beastly to me when I'd simply replied approvingly to a ScottP post about some Brexit issue or other.
As I've posted before, memory can be a lying jade!
DAN HODGES reveals the SEVEN times Starmer has misled the House of Commons or broken ministerial code
Offence 1: On September 10, 2025, Starmer told the House that 'full due process was followed during (Mandelson's) appointment, as it is with all ambassadors'.
Offence 2: Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Starmer was asked by Kemi Badenoch if pressure had been leveraged on civil servants responsible for Mandelson's vetting, and other aspects of his appointment. He replied: 'No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.'
Offence 3: In the same session, Starmer claimed 'Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday'. He then read out a series of quotes that were selective, and deliberately tailored to giving the false impression that Robbins had denied pressure had been brought to bear.
Offence 4: In an interview published in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister again claimed Robbins had insisted no pressure was brought to bear over Mandelson's vetting.
Offence 5: On Sunday, it was reported that Starmer had breached the Ministerial Code by attending a meeting with Mandelson, then ambassador, with one of Mandelson's former clients, the defence contractor Palantir.
Offence 6: Last month, it was reported that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, had his mobile phone stolen on which were messages relating to Mandelson's appointment.
Offence 7: In February, Starmer gave a statement in which he pointedly blamed failings by security for Mandelson's appointment. 'Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again,' he said. 'I've already strengthened the due process, I think we need to look at the security vetting.' https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15770359/The-SEVEN-times-Starmer-misled-House.html
I've taken out Hodges' discussion of each point but that's the list, in case it is paywalled. I'm not sure there is no double counting!
Utter nonsense from Hodges. His mother must be turning in her grave at what her son has become.
Even if No 10 had done diddly squat, there was inevitably implied "pressure" on the FO in that No 10's wish for Mandelson to be appointed was clear from the very outset. Of course the FO felt under pressure because of that. But because that is blindingly obvious it is also clear that Badenoch et al were asking about something else, that is idea of leveraging pressure on civil servants to actually influence the outcome of the vetting process and not just expedite it. And for that there is no evidence, and if there were you would still have to show that Starmer knew it was happening in order to intentionally mislead.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Sure, but we didn't know then that we would have a pandemic, global financial crash and a series of major wars in a short space of time that paralysed our economy. Things change. What we thought we would be able to afford we can't now.
So put up tax and include income tax on pensions.
But we can still put benefits up 6.4% , thousand a day joining the merry band. Soon be no workers we will all have anxiety , ADHD et al
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
A good point, as Tom Newton Dunn once pointed out on an episode of the Daily Politics, the British Military hold filing cabinents full of the records of then serving soldiers and the investigations into incidents in the line of duty but the IRA didn't bother to do the same when it came to the terrorist acts carried out by their members.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
One of Edward Thomas's lesser know works.
We did Edward Thomas for O-level. Luckily word came through from the other two English classes that their teachers were 99 per cent sure that Adlestrop would be the poem that came up on the paper. They were right.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
he loved to boast about his first class flights, gold cards , multiple homes , etc , etc and took umbrage when called out on his boasting if I remember correctly
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
says the emigrant who does not pay NI or tax
He definitely does pay NI, as is a good idea when you spend half your working life overseas.
Not that I’m expecting anything at the end of it, retirement age will end up being at least 70 if not 75 by the time I get that old.
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
The US navy is blockading Iranian ports, trying to stop their oil getting out.
The Iranians are supposedly blocking the Straight, but quite a lot of traffic has been getting through, especially that not related to O&G or container trade.
Thanks. So not a full blockade by either side?
Pretendy like everything else happening there, you cannot believe a word either side says
Burnham and Rayner would indeed make a useful pairing to replace Starmer.
But stark reality means that Burnham has to curb his ambition. There is no way for him to become an MP in time without close cooperation from Starmer, not only to step down before he is pushed but also to clear the way for Burnham as his successor.
So Rayner has to be the PM in that pairing, and Burnham the ennobled senior Cabinet minister serving as her Deputy PM with perhaps reponsibility for the regions, a similar role to that which John Prescott played to Blair. I remember how Labour successfully put Brown at the centre of the 2005 GE campaign given that he was so much more popular than Blair by then - a Rayner/Burnham combo could be similarly effective.
Burnham could formally remain as GM Metro Mayor while serving in the Cabinet, even though most of the work in GM would be done by his deputies.
Burnham made his choice when he choose being the Mayor over being an MP. That it is an issue now is a feature of that choice, not a bug.
To clarify, Burnham's flawed choice was not so much choosing to be GM Mayor (which has worked well for him in terms of his reputation) but to continue rather than seeking a parliamentary seat prior to the 2024 GE. Maybe that's what you meant.
His other flawed choice was not to resign from Harman's Shadow Cabinet in Summer 2015 when she overstepped her interim LOTO role by trying to force through changes in Labour's approach to welfare, the consequence of which was to discredit him as a candidate of the left and open the door to Corbyn.
Both choices have denied him the chance of being PM.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
says the emigrant who does not pay NI or tax
Right. But there’s still no ‘pot’. Your generation spunked it on goodies and failed to make provision
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
He was an inveterate name dropper, and yes, there was a touch of wanting both cake and ha'penny, but doxing is still bad form.
There is a sort of means testing for the pension already tbh, if tax thresholds remain frozen the gov't receives back first 20%, then 40% followed by all of the pension between £100k and £125.14K
how do they get all of it between 100 - 125K and what happens above 125K
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
says the emigrant who does not pay NI or tax
He definitely does pay NI, as is a good idea when you spend half your working life overseas.
Not that I’m expecting anything at the end of it, retirement age will end up being at least 70 if not 75 by the time I get that old.
well you pay a pittance rate not full rate based on your salary
There is a sort of means testing for the pension already tbh, if tax thresholds remain frozen the gov't receives back first 20%, then 40% followed by all of the pension between £100k and £125.14K
how do they get all of it between 100 - 125K and what happens above 125K
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
So do I; polite, even when he disagreed with somebody, as I recall.
I don't remember him being particularly polite. He once flew off the handle and was beastly to me when I'd simply replied approvingly to a ScottP post about some Brexit issue or other.
Also surprisingly ignorant about the mucosal element of the respiratory immune system.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
Sir Keir Starmer ***will*** impose a three-line whip on Labour MPs to oppose the motion referring him to the privileges committee for misleading the Commons, as we first reported at the weekend
Oh dear oh dear.
Surely there must be a minister or two prepared to resign over this, on a point of principle?
Outrageous.. but you would expect that from a shit.like Starmer.
Sherelle Jacobs @Sherelle_E_J The biggest tell that Labour MPs aren’t *that* serious about removing Starmer? The way they still keep bringing Andy Burnham’s name up as the favourite successor 🙄. That is the giveaway that they are not living in the land of strategic realism, but rather impotent if-only-ism. They know full well he can’t mount a formal challenge. That would require 1) another by-election opportunity 2) Starmer to lose his mind and allow his biggest threat a clean run through the NEC 3) Labour to actually win that by-election (a tall order). Reality check: It’s not gonna happen!
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Staggering that no-one on the Committee is following up on McSweeeny's passing comment he was not convinced by the responses he received from Mandelson over the due diligence report.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
"Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well" - Why not, if they have paid their national insurance and tax?
Because despite the fairy tales people believe the NI and tax people pay doesn't fund their own pensions but that of their parents and grandparents.
I understand that but the deal with government is pay your national insurance and when you retire you get the pension. And you plan your retirement on that basis.
Most people when polled on pension entitlement think there’s a ‘pot’ that they’ve been paying into all their life.
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
says the emigrant who does not pay NI or tax
Right. But there’s still no ‘pot’. Your generation spunked it on goodies and failed to make provision
Afraid to burst your bubble sunshine but I have paid dearly to make provision, I am not on the breadline.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
V clever guy.
not hard when you are born with a silver canteen of cutlery nver mind a spoon
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
One of Edward Thomas's lesser know works.
We did Edward Thomas for O-level. Luckily word came through from the other two English classes that their teachers were 99 per cent sure that Adlestrop would be the poem that came up on the paper. They were right.
There is a sort of means testing for the pension already tbh, if tax thresholds remain frozen the gov't receives back first 20%, then 40% followed by all of the pension between £100k and £125.14K
how do they get all of it between 100 - 125K and what happens above 125K
Pension roughly = Personal allowance
very true, hard to see how they can take much more from me I have some kind of negative tax code and still they want more at end of year
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
V clever guy.
not hard when you are born with a silver canteen of cutlery nver mind a spoon
You still have to work to get those skills and work very hard.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
A good point, as Tom Newton Dunn once pointed out on an episode of the Daily Politics, the British Military hold filing cabinents full of the records of then serving soldiers and the investigations into incidents in the line of duty but the IRA didn't bother to do the same when it came to the terrorist acts carried out by their members.
i wonder why a prescribed organisation wasn't as meticulous in their bureaucracy as the armed forces of a nuclear power.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
If someone is severely disabled and needs extra money in support, what's the point of giving that money and then taking it away again? Some benefits are for specific purposes and it's a bit pointless taxing them.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Heard Daisy Cooper on the radio the other day, wouldn't say she sounded particularly "progressive" tbh. More pragmatic unashamedly pro trade, pro EU centrism. Million miles from the Greens.
Burnham and Rayner would indeed make a useful pairing to replace Starmer.
But stark reality means that Burnham has to curb his ambition. There is no way for him to become an MP in time without close cooperation from Starmer, not only to step down before he is pushed but also to clear the way for Burnham as his successor.
So Rayner has to be the PM in that pairing, and Burnham the ennobled senior Cabinet minister serving as her Deputy PM with perhaps reponsibility for the regions, a similar role to that which John Prescott played to Blair. I remember how Labour successfully put Brown at the centre of the 2005 GE campaign given that he was so much more popular than Blair by then - a Rayner/Burnham combo could be similarly effective.
Burnham could formally remain as GM Metro Mayor while serving in the Cabinet, even though most of the work in GM would be done by his deputies.
Burnham made his choice when he choose being the Mayor over being an MP. That it is an issue now is a feature of that choice, not a bug.
To clarify, Burnham's flawed choice was not so much choosing to be GM Mayor (which has worked well for him in terms of his reputation) but to continue rather than seeking a parliamentary seat prior to the 2024 GE. Maybe that's what you meant.
His other flawed choice was not to resign from Harman's Shadow Cabinet in Summer 2015 when she overstepped her interim LOTO role by trying to force through changes in Labour's approach to welfare, the consequence of which was to discredit him as a candidate of the left and open the door to Corbyn.
Both choices have denied him the chance of being PM.
Yes - that was what I meant. He could easily have become an MP again in 2024.
BREAK: National Security Advisor, Johnathan Powell, was appointed before going through DV clearance, Morgan McSweeney claims.
The Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff also says he was appointed before being security cleared.
My understanding was that Peter Mandelson was a rare case due to being a former Minister and member of the Lords, but this suggests something far more widespread.
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
If someone is severely disabled and needs extra money in support, what's the point of giving that money and then taking it away again? Some benefits are for specific purposes and it's a bit pointless taxing them.
TiL PIP is non taxable income. Didn't know that before !
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
A good point, as Tom Newton Dunn once pointed out on an episode of the Daily Politics, the British Military hold filing cabinents full of the records of then serving soldiers and the investigations into incidents in the line of duty but the IRA didn't bother to do the same when it came to the terrorist acts carried out by their members.
There was also a lot fewer of them. Even at the peak of the Troubles, the PIRA had less than 1,000 active serving members in Derry and Belfast with less than 300 doing the actual fighting. The British forces got to well over 20,000 at one point.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
I think everyone has different levels of concern about whether their online 'anonymous' postings are ever linked to IRL. I would stand by anything I have posted, and feel I have nothing to fear from being identified. But others feel differently, and that's up to them. Where I think it odd is to post lots of identifying stuff and still get upset about doxxing - a certain flint knapper on here is so transparently a certain person that I think its all a bit joke or at best plausible deniability.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
One of Edward Thomas's lesser know works.
We did Edward Thomas for O-level. Luckily word came through from the other two English classes that their teachers were 99 per cent sure that Adlestrop would be the poem that came up on the paper. They were right.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Heard Daisy Cooper on the radio the other day, wouldn't say she sounded particularly "progressive" tbh. More pragmatic unashamedly pro trade, pro EU centrism. Million miles from the Greens.
To take a case in point the Lib Dems would cut fuel duty, Greens would have a 55 MPH max limit !
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Help I cannot log into the comments on this site Have cleared cache etc but makes no difference -Not sure how I got here which is not the usual comment section. under the leader. Have tried both Chrome and safari. There is no where on the site to contact someone -could you put an email up somewhere.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Heard Daisy Cooper on the radio the other day, wouldn't say she sounded particularly "progressive" tbh. More pragmatic unashamedly pro trade, pro EU centrism. Million miles from the Greens.
Sooner or later the gulf between the eco-warriors and middle-aged environmentalists that used to be the core green activist and vote, and the wave of radical Corbynistas that Polanski has attracted, will come to a head. He’s getting away with it currently as all successful leaders do, since members will put up with a lot if their party is winning stuff. That won’t last for ever.
Help I cannot log into the comments on this site Have cleared cache etc but makes no difference -Not sure how I got here which is not the usual comment section. under the leader. Have tried both Chrome and safari. There is no where on the site to contact someone -could you put an email up somewhere.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 21s Staggering that no-one on the Committee is following up on McSweeeny's passing comment he was not convinced by the responses he received from Mandelson over the due diligence report.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
If someone is severely disabled and needs extra money in support, what's the point of giving that money and then taking it away again? Some benefits are for specific purposes and it's a bit pointless taxing them.
TiL PIP is non taxable income. Didn't know that before !
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Heard Daisy Cooper on the radio the other day, wouldn't say she sounded particularly "progressive" tbh. More pragmatic unashamedly pro trade, pro EU centrism. Million miles from the Greens.
Sooner or later the gulf between the eco-warriors and middle-aged environmentalists that used to be the core green activist and vote, and the wave of radical Corbynistas that Polanski has attracted, will come to a head. He’s getting away with it currently as all successful leaders do, since members will put up with a lot if their party is winning stuff. That won’t last for ever.
I'm not sure about that. Even "middle age environmentalists" who are Green Party members are usually very reliably left wing. They won't be put off by the arrival of asylum seekers from the outer reaches of the Labour Party.
After some reflection on holiday, I have left the party. I can see where it's going under ZP and it's not for me. If they want to have a "conversation" about policies like leaving NATO and abolishing the monarchy then they can fuck off and have it without me.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
I think everyone has different levels of concern about whether their online 'anonymous' postings are ever linked to IRL. I would stand by anything I have posted, and feel I have nothing to fear from being identified. But others feel differently, and that's up to them. Where I think it odd is to post lots of identifying stuff and still get upset about doxxing - a certain flint knapper on here is so transparently a certain person that I think its all a bit joke or at best plausible deniability.
Indeed. I go to great lengths on here to ensure people don't realise my true identity is Homer Simpson.
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
There is no general amnesty for IRA members.
Is there a de facto one? Is anyone going after them in the way the soldiers are being investigated?
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
thought they always had an amnesty
There's never been an amnesty. The Good Friday Agreement provided for early releases.
McSweeney seems to have changed his story within an hour of questioning. Now saying he believed he was told the full truth by Mandelson.
A juror notes
Not a reliable witness having listened to it all so far. I notice that he leapt on a useful question to suggest that his Mandelson recommendation was wrong in hindsight but only because of what emerged later, rather than being wrong at the time. In fact of course his position on resigning was because the decision was wrong at the time. He leapt on the apparently helpful rather than truthful. This suggests someone who is anxious to curate the history.
Two other things to note: they had no backup thoughts at all as to what would happen if and when PeterM failed vetting. It is obvious that this was because this was not going to be permitted to happen. (The Case advice is devastating really. He claimed not to know about it.)
He has the usual tendency to remember clearly what is good to remember and won't or can't be challenged or which he has to remember in order for his story to stand up. And to be uncertain about stuff where he isn't sure what is going to emerge, or what is the best line to take.
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
V clever guy.
not hard when you are born with a silver canteen of cutlery nver mind a spoon
You still have to work to get those skills and work very hard.
a lot easier than someone who starts with nothing , when you get all eth best, contacts , all eth buddies etc it is much easier than someone who has to start at bottom of the pile , by a very long way.
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Is it to give the finances of village halls a regular boost?
We need confirmation Powell passed vetting in full, now.
I will press in the chamber today.
This was asked at PMQs last week but not necessarily answered:-
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con) Q4. We know that the Prime Minister has been playing fast and loose with ministerial appointments in his chumocracy, so I want to ask him about the first one. [Interruption.] Labour Members’ boos mean nothing to me; I have seen what makes them cheer. Jonathan Powell was appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory on 6 September, but throughout August he held meetings with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials and was given access to classified information, including a minute of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, who is sat next to him on the Front Bench. My question is very simple: when was Jonathan Powell appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance did he have upon that appointment?
Comments
The only feasible solution involves raising the retirement age, keeping the basic pension below the personal allowance, and merging employee NI into income tax.
Mandelson vetting: Sir Philip Barton and Morgan McSweeney questioned by Foreign Affairs Committee
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyfyhaN-55M
The Iranians are supposedly blocking the Straight, but quite a lot of traffic has been getting through, especially that not related to O&G or container trade.
Offence 1: On September 10, 2025, Starmer told the House that 'full due process was followed during (Mandelson's) appointment, as it is with all ambassadors'.
Offence 2: Last Wednesday, at Prime Minister's Questions, Starmer was asked by Kemi Badenoch if pressure had been leveraged on civil servants responsible for Mandelson's vetting, and other aspects of his appointment. He replied: 'No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.'
Offence 3: In the same session, Starmer claimed 'Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday'. He then read out a series of quotes that were selective, and deliberately tailored to giving the false impression that Robbins had denied pressure had been brought to bear.
Offence 4: In an interview published in The Sunday Times, the Prime Minister again claimed Robbins had insisted no pressure was brought to bear over Mandelson's vetting.
Offence 5: On Sunday, it was reported that Starmer had breached the Ministerial Code by attending a meeting with Mandelson, then ambassador, with one of Mandelson's former clients, the defence contractor Palantir.
Offence 6: Last month, it was reported that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer's former chief of staff, had his mobile phone stolen on which were messages relating to Mandelson's appointment.
Offence 7: In February, Starmer gave a statement in which he pointedly blamed failings by security for Mandelson's appointment. 'Clearly, both the due diligence and the security vetting need to be looked at again,' he said. 'I've already strengthened the due process, I think we need to look at the security vetting.'
https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15770359/The-SEVEN-times-Starmer-misled-House.html
I've taken out Hodges' discussion of each point but that's the list, in case it is paywalled. I'm not sure there is no double counting!
The current Bill is aimed as bringing up the Northern Ireland Troubles all over again, after the IRA were (correctly IMHO) pardoned by the Good Friday Agreement.
https://www.politico.eu/article/johnny-mercer-veteran-uk-minister-risk-jail-over-bombshell-war-crimes-probe-afghanistan-sas-army/
He's a a bit of an oddball, who can be, and is cited by both sides of the argument.
Burnham and Rayner would indeed make a useful pairing to replace Starmer.
But stark reality means that Burnham has to curb his ambition. There is no way for him to become an MP in time without close cooperation from Starmer, not only to step down before he is pushed but also to clear the way for Burnham as his successor.
So Rayner has to be the PM in that pairing, and Burnham the ennobled senior Cabinet minister serving as her Deputy PM with perhaps reponsibility for the regions, a similar role to that which John Prescott played to Blair. I remember how Labour successfully put Brown at the centre of the 2005 GE campaign given that he was so much more popular than Blair by then - a Rayner/Burnham combo could be similarly effective.
Burnham could formally remain as GM Metro Mayor while serving in the Cabinet, even though most of the work in GM would be done by his deputies.
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Does their state pension go up only by inflation or by average wages increase or is it frozen year after year ?
Either way it is going to be both fiddly and unpopular.
Have you and Kemi thought through the practical consequences of this idea ?
It was Phil Shiner who was paying Iraqis to tell him what he wanted to hear.
Even if No 10 had done diddly squat, there was inevitably implied "pressure" on the FO in that No 10's wish for Mandelson to be appointed was clear from the very outset. Of course the FO felt under pressure because of that. But because that is blindingly obvious it is also clear that Badenoch et al were asking about something else, that is idea of leveraging pressure on civil servants to actually influence the outcome of the vetting process and not just expedite it. And for that there is no evidence, and if there were you would still have to show that Starmer knew it was happening in order to intentionally mislead.
The rest is contrived fluff.
Not that I’m expecting anything at the end of it, retirement age will end up being at least 70 if not 75 by the time I get that old.
His other flawed choice was not to resign from Harman's Shadow Cabinet in Summer 2015 when she overstepped her interim LOTO role by trying to force through changes in Labour's approach to welfare, the consequence of which was to discredit him as a candidate of the left and open the door to Corbyn.
Both choices have denied him the chance of being PM.
But none of us are perfect.
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
Sherelle Jacobs
@Sherelle_E_J
The biggest tell that Labour MPs aren’t *that* serious about removing Starmer? The way they still keep bringing Andy Burnham’s name up as the favourite successor 🙄. That is the giveaway that they are not living in the land of strategic realism, but rather impotent if-only-ism. They know full well he can’t mount a formal challenge. That would require 1) another by-election opportunity 2) Starmer to lose his mind and allow his biggest threat a clean run through the NEC 3) Labour to actually win that by-election (a tall order). Reality check: It’s not gonna happen!
https://x.com/Sherelle_E_J/status/2049026631323324719
(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
21s
Staggering that no-one on the Committee is following up on McSweeeny's passing comment he was not convinced by the responses he received from Mandelson over the due diligence report.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/2049080747990917436
Ethan Croft
@EthanCroft98
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
https://x.com/EthanCroft98/status/2049054296986063161
BREAK: National Security Advisor, Johnathan Powell, was appointed before going through DV clearance, Morgan McSweeney claims.
The Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff also says he was appointed before being security cleared.
My understanding was that Peter Mandelson was a rare case due to being a former Minister and member of the Lords, but this suggests something far more widespread.
https://x.com/angelshalagina/status/2049026601904468005
Anything that wasn’t got by last week’s fires, is going to be got by this week’s fires.
Help I cannot log into the comments on this site Have cleared cache etc but makes no difference -Not sure how I got here which is not the usual comment section. under the leader. Have tried both Chrome and safari. There is no where on the site to contact someone -could you put an email up somewhere.
Corbynistas that Polanski has attracted, will come to a head. He’s getting away with it currently as all successful leaders do, since members will put up with a lot if their party is winning stuff. That won’t last for ever.
Mandelson’s ever told anyone the truth about anything, in the past three decades?
@danbloom1
·
10m
Morgan McSweeney now appears to have contradicted what he said earlier:
Did you advise the PM that you thought Mandelson hadn’t told the full truth? "No, I didn’t say that"
“I didn’t think he had lied. I thought he’d told the truth"
“I assumed wrongly he was telling the truth"
https://x.com/danbloom1/status/2049086528169631887
EDIT: It is not.
Barton confirmed that never happened .
After some reflection on holiday, I have left the party. I can see where it's going under ZP and it's not for me. If they want to have a "conversation" about policies like leaving NATO and abolishing the monarchy then they can fuck off and have it without me.
Absolutely no surprises here.
I’ve raised my concerns in the Chamber before.
We need confirmation Powell passed vetting in full, now.
I will press in the chamber today.
Doh! Oh well, better eat some donuts.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
Not a reliable witness having listened to it all so far. I notice that he leapt on a useful question to suggest that his Mandelson recommendation was wrong in hindsight but only because of what emerged later, rather than being wrong at the time. In fact of course his position on resigning was because the decision was wrong at the time. He leapt on the apparently helpful rather than truthful. This suggests someone who is anxious to curate the history.
Two other things to note: they had no backup thoughts at all as to what would happen if and when PeterM failed vetting. It is obvious that this was because this was not going to be permitted to happen. (The Case advice is devastating really. He claimed not to know about it.)
He has the usual tendency to remember clearly what is good to remember and won't or can't be challenged or which he has to remember in order for his story to stand up. And to be uncertain about stuff where he isn't sure what is going to emerge, or what is the best line to take.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Q4. We know that the Prime Minister has been playing fast and loose with ministerial appointments in his chumocracy, so I want to ask him about the first one. [Interruption.] Labour Members’ boos mean nothing to me; I have seen what makes them cheer. Jonathan Powell was appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory on 6 September, but throughout August he held meetings with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials and was given access to classified information, including a minute of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, who is sat next to him on the Front Bench. My question is very simple: when was Jonathan Powell appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance did he have upon that appointment?
The Prime Minister
Let me say that Jonathan Powell is doing an excellent job for this Government. He is respected across the world, and is playing a significant part in dealing with the huge challenges that we face.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2026-04-22/debates/20592A55-C195-4ADC-B2E4-9E7D01E230CA/Engagements#contribution-371238A6-E728-4ED0-9580-3CD61F5A7C06