I have always had a huge issue with this question...as it asks the wrong question and / or a question that can be taken several ways.
Read literally, "who is to blame for the cuts" or even "who is most to blame", that is quite clearly the current government as they are the ones with the power to cut or not to cut, and the longer you go from the last government the more people will obviously say well the idiots currently in charge.
Surely after 5 years of The Coalition actually making cuts the astonishing fact is that more voters still blame Labour ? I would point out that averaging the Polls so far this Month Labour are about 0.7% ahead, last Month it was 3.2%. A 2.5% drop in less than a month is significant I think. PB is a great site but it does have a long-standing tendenct to big-up Labour & run down The Libdems.
ELBOW for the whole of December (all 32 polls) gave a Lab lead of 1.7%. The week running up to Xmas, the Lab lead was 2.6%. Last week it was 0.8%.
The Pope's a tosser. He's either a craven apologist, or seeking to establish a wider puritanical alliance to forbid mockery of various religions and religious figures.
I suspect the latter. But on this the Pope is wrong. He should remember the teachings of Jesus - "turn the other cheek".
It was notable in this country when the Religious Hatred Bill was going through how all the church leaders joined together to try and get the provisions passed. They were, disgracefully, free riding on the coat tails of the one group in particular that was pushing.
Interestingly, a lot of evangelical non-conformist Christians sided with the National Secular Society in opposing the legislation. Their history tells them how dangerous it is to allow the State to legislate in matters of religion.
I have always had a huge issue with this question...as it asks the wrong question and / or a question that can be taken several ways.
Read literally, "who is to blame for the cuts" or even "who is most to blame", that is quite clearly the current government as they are the ones with the power to cut or not to cut, and the longer you go from the last government the more people will obviously say well the idiots currently in charge.
More than anything it plants the idea that more public spending is necessarily a good thing. Surely "responsible" would have been a better word than "blame"? [though once you've started a polling series, better not to change the question].
I have always had a huge issue with this question...as it asks the wrong question and / or a question that can be taken several ways.
Read literally, "who is to blame for the cuts" or even "who is most to blame", that is quite clearly the current government as they are the ones with the power to cut or not to cut, and the longer you go from the last government the more people will obviously say well the idiots currently in charge.
More than anything it plants the idea that more public spending is necessarily a good thing. Surely "responsible" would have been a better word than "blame"? [though once you've started a polling series, better not to change the question].
We can all agree that the wording is not optimal, though perhaps we'd struggle to agree on a better wording, but that matters less here, because the same wording has been used throughout.
The closing of the gap is therefore noteworthy, but I think that Labour are still blamed by more people than the Coalition is more consequential. If we suppose that people are unhappy about the status quo - the Cuts - they are hardly likely to turn to the people they blame most for a change. Thus this polling suggests that PM Cameron clings on.
Having bonds that pay a higher rate of interest than the government would have to pay to borrow the same money in the gilts market is crazy. Limiting those bonds to a certain segment of the population who have also been protected from so many other consequences of the Brown bust (for which those persons of uncertain parentage voted in large numbers when they were younger) is immoral and a dishonest use of public funds.
I am shocked, just shocked that this might happen a few months before an election.
Sadly, not even the lack of criticism of this move is shocking, so inured to this sort of thing have we become.
And yet there are still Tory supporters who pretend that it is only Labour who are financially irresponsible and use the Exchequer to buy votes.
You are correct about the lack of criticism. I have not seen a single article lamenting the fact that our government is going to so much trouble to borrow at more than the market rate. It is all about getting your fingers in the pot and what an opportunity this is.
The best argument I can make for the tories on this is that they tend to bribe fewer people on a smaller scale than Labour. It is not exactly inspiring as a battle cry. And the people they are bribing are those who have the money to invest whilst Labour are bribing those with very little so the tories' conduct is on any view is even more reprehensible.
Sigh. Democracy is the worst system apart from all the others until people learn to bribe themselves. At that point it really ceases to work.
The Pope's a tosser. He's either a craven apologist, or seeking to establish a wider puritanical alliance to forbid mockery of various religions and religious figures.
I suspect the latter. But on this the Pope is wrong. He should remember the teachings of Jesus - "turn the other cheek".
It was notable in this country when the Religious Hatred Bill was going through how all the church leaders joined together to try and get the provisions passed. They were, disgracefully, free riding on the coat tails of the one group in particular that was pushing.
Interestingly, a lot of evangelical non-conformist Christians sided with the National Secular Society in opposing the legislation. Their history tells them how dangerous it is to allow the State to legislate in matters of religion.
Quite. And therefore even more idiotic of the Catholic church to go along with the proposal given how the State legislated against Catholicism in the past. You'd have thought that the Catholic hierarchy would have had some sense of history at least.
Sadly hierarchies tend to like other hierarchies and power. And if they see an opportunity to grab some they will. Which is why you must never give them the opportunity.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
I think exclusion is better. All the attention is great, the ability to play the victim card doesnt hurt and Natalie Bennett doesnt .. I'll stop there.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
I think exclusion is better. All the attention is great, the ability to play the victim card doesnt hurt and Natalie Bennett doesnt .. I'll stop there.
Why did you elect an Aussie as your leader? It does seem a little quixotic.
81% (all those giving a voting intention) would be implausibly high for turnout, but 61% (all those certain to vote) sounds very low too.
It was 65% in 2010.
With all these new kippers who didn't previously vote that we are assured are going to turn out to go purple and with the new voters in the Scottish referendum who may well be lured out for a second time in May, I would have thought 65% is the base. The differentiation in spending plans between the two main parties should probably persuade a few more out on each side too.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
I think exclusion is better. All the attention is great, the ability to play the victim card doesnt hurt and Natalie Bennett doesnt .. I'll stop there.
She's up against Ed Miliband and can play the outsider card as effectively as the Earl of Sidcup. How hard can it be for her?
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
These poor pensioners planned for their retirement in the belief that they would be able to secure a decent income from interest payments. The government is merely restoring the status quo ante to those who have been disadvantaged by the global financial crisis.
That's bollocks, of course, but it's presentable bollocks.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
Wealthy? You work all your life for a pension pot and now look to invest it? Whats wrong with that? Labour ruin pensions collapse the economy and interest rates and this govt to a little bit to allow pensioners to put a little bit towards some miserable amount of income.
Why don't you and your s**dding miserable fellow travellers just pi$$ off. What a total useless waste of space this website has become.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
The maths isn't quite as simple as that: you would normally pay a premium for retail vs institutional borrowing anyway. Consequently, to the extent that this is genuinely a new source of capital there may be an argument for paying that premium.
But this just affects the size of the gap not the principle of what you say.
OTOH, the argument is that ZIRP effectively cratered the returns available to pensioners to benefit large borrowers and this is just partially offsetting the consequences of ZIRP.
81% (all those giving a voting intention) would be implausibly high for turnout, but 61% (all those certain to vote) sounds very low too.
It was 65% in 2010.
With all these new kippers who didn't previously vote that we are assured are going to turn out to go purple and with the new voters in the Scottish referendum who may well be lured out for a second time in May, I would have thought 65% is the base. The differentiation in spending plans between the two main parties should probably persuade a few more out on each side too.
Well, 61% "certain to vote" - and, tangentially, I'd philosophically balk at ticking that even though I've voted in every election since I was 18 - suggests a turnout of over 65%, no?
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
I think exclusion is better. All the attention is great, the ability to play the victim card doesnt hurt and Natalie Bennett doesnt .. I'll stop there.
She's up against Ed Miliband and can play the outsider card as effectively as the Earl of Sidcup. How hard can it be for her?
Thought experiment - pricing up a 5-way debate on the basis of e.g. a YouGov poll asking "who did you think won the debate?"
Green 7/4 UKIP 9/4 Labour 4/1 Conservative 5/1 Lib Dem 9/1
I'm surprised that the government hasn't thought of issuing bonds for hypothecated purposes. If Hotel Chocolat can get willing takers for bonds that pay out in chocolate, surely the Government could tempt the public to buy bonds for some cuddly social purpose that pay out a modest but reliable return - for example, hospital infrastructure? Done right, it could give the buyer all of the moral cachet that banking with the Co-op had, without any crystal meth or young gentlemen of negotiable virtue.
It might even be a useful way to ensure that future governments don't decide to rewrite the deal many years in the future.
81% (all those giving a voting intention) would be implausibly high for turnout, but 61% (all those certain to vote) sounds very low too.
It was 65% in 2010.
With all these new kippers who didn't previously vote that we are assured are going to turn out to go purple and with the new voters in the Scottish referendum who may well be lured out for a second time in May, I would have thought 65% is the base. The differentiation in spending plans between the two main parties should probably persuade a few more out on each side too.
Well, 61% "certain to vote" - and, tangentially, I'd philosophically balk at ticking that even though I've voted in every election since I was 18 - suggests a turnout of over 65%, no?
I'd accept that unhesitatingly. That raises the question what we do about the differences in the poll findings between those that are certain to vote and those that are likely to vote, given that we can be fairly sure that the first group does not capture all those who will be actual voters.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
I think exclusion is better. All the attention is great, the ability to play the victim card doesnt hurt and Natalie Bennett doesnt .. I'll stop there.
Why did you elect an Aussie as your leader? It does seem a little quixotic.
Dont blame me! Actually, I may have not bothered voting so maybe blame me a small, little bit.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
The maths isn't quite as simple as that: you would normally pay a premium for retail vs institutional borrowing anyway. Consequently, to the extent that this is genuinely a new source of capital there may be an argument for paying that premium.
But this just affects the size of the gap not the principle of what you say.
OTOH, the argument is that ZIRP effectively cratered the returns available to pensioners to benefit large borrowers and this is just partially offsetting the consequences of ZIRP.
Charles, by ignoring the additional costs of retail selling I was doing the government an undeserved favour. The additional cost of selling those Granny bonds will of course be far, far more than the £72m per billion I have indicated. The need for a new and alternative source of capital is not obvious when people are queuing up to lend their money to HMG at less than even current inflation rates.
The consequences of the ZIRP have indeed been severe for savers but the answer to that is to increase interest rates to a level where savers get a real return on their investments, not just to provide some protection for a small segment of the population. Not all savers are over 65.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
Well it's a tricky one isn't it.
Pensioners have one the one hand been sheltered from cuts in a way that the young haven't (e.g. triple lock, continued non taxing of heating allowances etc versus £9K tuition fees), but have been roundly screwed, even if they've been diligent and saved, through no fault of their own, by interest rates and bond yields never seen since the invention of something approaching modern finance at the end of the 1600's. The self same low rates, however, tend to benefit the young in the shape of mortgages at 3/4% interest as opposed to about 8-12% going back 20-30 years.
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
Wealthy? You work all your life for a pension pot and now look to invest it? Whats wrong with that? Labour ruin pensions collapse the economy and interest rates and this govt to a little bit to allow pensioners to put a little bit towards some miserable amount of income.
Why don't you and your s**dding miserable fellow travellers just pi$$ off. What a total useless waste of space this website has become.
What's wrong is that these are people who are able to look after themselves, they shouldn't be getting a government handout, particularly when the government is having to borrow £100bn a year.
It's this sort of nonsense that encourages the opinion that the deficit isn't a real problem, and that we don't need to worry about it. Osborne et al are hardly acting that concerned about it if they are throwing sweeties to their favoured parts of the electorate.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Rather irritatingly for Labour, the Lib Dems and UKIP, the public seem generally to have decided that it would be good to have the Greens in the debate (personally, I think their case is weak, but the court of public opinion seems to think otherwise). Whether or not the public also think David Cameron is chicken, the Greens are now going to be quite hard to exclude completely.
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
I'm sure many wont renew their membership. That's the nature of these things. And I doubt the same proportion will be converted into activists as would be expected in a more usual intake. But the idea that they are not real people who have really joined up in the last 24 hours is far-fetched.
Nope, the mass sign up of people to a political party has simply not been seen in the UK since, looking at the records, September 2014. A period of history so long ago that it is simply not comparable to modern times
It's very unusual to have 2,000 new members joining a party in 24 hours. Not everyone will believe these are genuine members who are going to stay the course.
SNP had thousands joining day after day , so not that unusual
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
Wealthy? You work all your life for a pension pot and now look to invest it? Whats wrong with that? Labour ruin pensions collapse the economy and interest rates and this govt to a little bit to allow pensioners to put a little bit towards some miserable amount of income.
Why don't you and your s**dding miserable fellow travellers just pi$$ off. What a total useless waste of space this website has become.
What's wrong is that these are people who are able to look after themselves, they shouldn't be getting a government handout, particularly when the government is having to borrow £100bn a year.
It's this sort of nonsense that encourages the opinion that the deficit isn't a real problem, and that we don't need to worry about it. Osborne et al are hardly acting that concerned about it if they are throwing sweeties to their favoured parts of the electorate.
The scheme reflects a peculiar circumstance. Why have various other tax free savings schemes and or others offering a higher rate if this principle is so horrid? And why bother to save for your pension - ? Why not just spend whilst you work or blow your lump sum and just pick up benefits for old age? The money with a pretty modest limit, is being put into an account for 3 years - you cannot access it without penalty you get a modest return of interest. How is giving the govt or national savings up to £10k affecting the deficit? For one year you get a princely 2.8% I think.
No, lets just be effing miserable and criticise people for being old and on a fixed income. Nonsense? if you want real nonsense just read all the increasing amount of total cack-headed nonsense written on PB every day. Its in a bubble all of its own.
Why don't you and your s**dding miserable fellow travellers just pi$$ off. What a total useless waste of space this website has become.
I've changed my mind. You *are* as good as Adrian Harper. Please dont leave now that I've finally begun to appreciate the joke.
Didn't you hear the pope? 'If you insult my wife expect a punch'?
Being lost in your own little bubble does not mean that your view of pensioners and their little fixed income and hard saved for pension pot is meaningless and can be subject to a free insult. God help you you will be old one day. Start saving now, shockingly you get tax relief. http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/tax-relief-on-pension-contributions Do you remember how Brown ruined pensions for working people by cancelling ACT? Presumably you agreed.
Comments
Read literally, "who is to blame for the cuts" or even "who is most to blame", that is quite clearly the current government as they are the ones with the power to cut or not to cut, and the longer you go from the last government the more people will obviously say well the idiots currently in charge.
The week running up to Xmas, the Lab lead was 2.6%.
Last week it was 0.8%.
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/554623413676175360
https://twitter.com/Sunil_P2/status/554618727518728193
Lab + Greens in 2010 was only 30%
Con + UKIP was 40%
Latest ELBOW (11th Jan) puts Lab + Green on 40%
and Con + UKIP on 47%
https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK/status/555736547036000256
The closing of the gap is therefore noteworthy, but I think that Labour are still blamed by more people than the Coalition is more consequential. If we suppose that people are unhappy about the status quo - the Cuts - they are hardly likely to turn to the people they blame most for a change. Thus this polling suggests that PM Cameron clings on.
The best argument I can make for the tories on this is that they tend to bribe fewer people on a smaller scale than Labour. It is not exactly inspiring as a battle cry. And the people they are bribing are those who have the money to invest whilst Labour are bribing those with very little so the tories' conduct is on any view is even more reprehensible.
Sigh. Democracy is the worst system apart from all the others until people learn to bribe themselves. At that point it really ceases to work.
It's yet another mad policy which a media that actually knew its arse from its elbow would be busy lambasting.
Sadly hierarchies tend to like other hierarchies and power. And if they see an opportunity to grab some they will. Which is why you must never give them the opportunity.
We'll see what this week's score will be!
The granny bonds are to pay 4% a year over 3 years. The current 2 year gilt for the UK trades at 0.4% http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/rates-bonds/government-bonds/uk/
So to borrow £1bn over those 2 years at commercial rates costs £8m. To borrow it at Granny rates costs £80m. An additional £72m which is being given to our wealthier pensioners for every £1bn that is borrowed.
And nobody says a word. It's a disgrace.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2015_United_Kingdom_general_election
That's bollocks, of course, but it's presentable bollocks.
Labour ruin pensions collapse the economy and interest rates and this govt to a little bit to allow pensioners to put a little bit towards some miserable amount of income.
Why don't you and your s**dding miserable fellow travellers just pi$$ off. What a total useless waste of space this website has become.
But this just affects the size of the gap not the principle of what you say.
OTOH, the argument is that ZIRP effectively cratered the returns available to pensioners to benefit large borrowers and this is just partially offsetting the consequences of ZIRP.
Healthcare 46% (+17)
Economy 33% (+2)
Immigration 27% (-3)
Green 7/4
UKIP 9/4
Labour 4/1
Conservative 5/1
Lib Dem 9/1
It might even be a useful way to ensure that future governments don't decide to rewrite the deal many years in the future.
https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3508/NHS-leads-economy-and-immigration-as-top-votedeciding-issue.aspx
Dave will be pleased (by all the all important, gold standard blah blah) Leaders' ratings.
Surely time for a Knew Fred?
It cannot be denied that labour have succeeded in driving the NHS up the agenda.
The consequences of the ZIRP have indeed been severe for savers but the answer to that is to increase interest rates to a level where savers get a real return on their investments, not just to provide some protection for a small segment of the population. Not all savers are over 65.
@Flightpath...nah, I can't be bothered.
Well it's a tricky one isn't it.
Pensioners have one the one hand been sheltered from cuts in a way that the young haven't (e.g. triple lock, continued non taxing of heating allowances etc versus £9K tuition fees), but have been roundly screwed, even if they've been diligent and saved, through no fault of their own, by interest rates and bond yields never seen since the invention of something approaching modern finance at the end of the 1600's. The self same low rates, however, tend to benefit the young in the shape of mortgages at 3/4% interest as opposed to about 8-12% going back 20-30 years.
It's this sort of nonsense that encourages the opinion that the deficit isn't a real problem, and that we don't need to worry about it. Osborne et al are hardly acting that concerned about it if they are throwing sweeties to their favoured parts of the electorate.
http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-people-voting-in-uk-1869774-Jan2015/
No, lets just be effing miserable and criticise people for being old and on a fixed income. Nonsense? if you want real nonsense just read all the increasing amount of total cack-headed nonsense written on PB every day. Its in a bubble all of its own.
Being lost in your own little bubble does not mean that your view of pensioners and their little fixed income and hard saved for pension pot is meaningless and can be subject to a free insult. God help you you will be old one day. Start saving now, shockingly you get tax relief.
http://www.nidirect.gov.uk/tax-relief-on-pension-contributions
Do you remember how Brown ruined pensions for working people by cancelling ACT? Presumably you agreed.