Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
In terms of the whole independence argument, it seems very hypocritical to want to leave a country and also attempt to govern it at the same time. The decent thing to do seems to be the line Sinn Fein take: stand for election in order to prove their support, but refuse to take their seats.
Not at all. One may wish to leave the UK but accept that that is not on the menu for the immediate future, and meanwhile the country has to be run in a civilised and efficient manner.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
Why?
What are you talking about?
Because it would be nice if the finance guy understood numbers?
I do thanks
The evidence isnt supporting you in this case I'm afraid.
It's a CARE scheme, career average revalued, not a final salary scheme. And your 1/80 scheme will have had a tax free lump sum on top, in this one you will have to sacrifice pension to get a lump sum. Very different beasts. Having said that, career average schemes can be more generous to non-high-fliers.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
I agree it means lower interest payments but at the cost of lower growth (assuming the borrowing is invested wisely). Paying down debt means you end up with a smaller cake albeit with a smaller slice taken out of it by the interest payments.
One's intuition on debt and deficit can be misleading. You need to do a simple financial model (eg in Excel) to see the effect of different assumptions.
On what would you say a Government should 'invest' the higher borrowing?
Not on consumption but on areas that enable future growth e.g. on education, direct and indirect R&D, roads. rail, energy provision, improving exporting capability. Also removing legislative clutter (red tape), simplifying processes, encouraging entrepreneurs and so on. Investing in the future not consuming it now.
Businesses would show this as capital expenditure and not account for it on the P&L.
Government doesn't seem to distinguish between spending and investing. Tories say spending, Labour say investing.
Spending on consumption (pensions, NHS, benefits, defence etc ) should be financed out of taxation. So should interest payments.
The principle is clear. The execution is difficult. How do you prioritise and quantify the returns? How do you resist dipping into the pot for extra pensions, NHS etc. And you have to manage the economic cycle. So I am not saying it is straight-forward. But the principle is.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
I have to say that's the first time the Tories (by which I think bigjohn means the coalition) has been accused of making the NHS scheme more generous. The unions seem to have been most ungrateful for this largesse.
Have I ever said that the pension changes were anything other than generous? The unions managed to negotiate a great deal
The accrual tate is better, but the postponement of retirement age, use of career average earnings instead of final salary and reductions in lump sum make the overall scheme less generous than the earlier schemes. Still pretty good, but the 14.7% employee contributions are a lot steeper too.
IMO the 1995 scheme was most generous but the 2015 scheme is far more beneficial than the 2008 one. Especially for those who only continue to contribute 5%.
The contribution rate you mention is only for those earning over £111k pa isn't it?
Pretty much. The width of the epiphyseal plates indicate a child. The fracture at the lower end of the leg is older than the central one. For a child to have two breaks a few weeks apart (the first would have been very painful for weightbearing) in the same limb would be very suspicious of "non-accidental injury".
It is a stock photo, but like the Tory "road to recovery" the add agencies do not always think things through, and get the imaged sourced properly.
Do hospitals - here or abroad - give/sell their X-ray images to Google or to photo libraries or to others?
I'm still curious as to how such information which must surely be kept confidential by the hospital makes its way into the public domain legitimately.
You realise the changes to the NHS scheme under the Tories make it even more generous do you From April 2015 get 1/54th of salary instead of 1/80th for each year of work
I thought you worked in finance? Isnt there a requirement to be numerate in such a position?
I have to say that's the first time the Tories (by which I think bigjohn means the coalition) has been accused of making the NHS scheme more generous. The unions seem to have been most ungrateful for this largesse.
Have I ever said that the pension changes were anything other than generous? The unions managed to negotiate a great deal
The accrual tate is better, but the postponement of retirement age, use of career average earnings instead of final salary and reductions in lump sum make the overall scheme less generous than the earlier schemes. Still pretty good, but the 14.7% employee contributions are a lot steeper too.
IMO the 1995 scheme was most generous but the 2015 scheme is far more beneficial than the 2008 one. Especially for those who only continue to contribute 5%.
The contribution rate you mention is only for those earning over £111k pa isn't it?
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
Accepting a seat in the House of Lords is a disciplinary offence resulting in automatic expulsion from the Scottish National Party.
meanwhile the country has to be run in a civilised and efficient manner.
Which is explicitly not what the SNP are offering.
"We won't support Tories under any circumstances" Civilised?
180 bn extra spending. Efficient?
You're confusing off the cuff remarks made during informal discussions to promote a book, with formal party policy - if I am right in guessing your source: your use of quotation marks is misleading, though I wouldn't dream of suggesting it is deliberate, as Google confirms there is no such statement in that form. The actual wording is 'do a deal' which is quite different.
And about 75% of Scots think it highly civilised anyway not to do a deal with Tories. That's democracy in action for you.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
I'm happy for him to spend 27 years doing hard labour on Robbin Island if he wants to make it a fair comparison....
18 years, Robben island, and I never heard that Mrs Salmond ran much of a politically-inspired campaign torturing and murdering children to which Alex turned a diplomatic blind eye.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
I notice Salmond is doing a lot of media. Spare a thought for poor Angus Robertson who is supposed to be the SNP leader at Westminster. Clearly not for much longer if Salmond gets his way...
I think, assuming that Salmond has the SNPs blessing that SNP are making a catastrophic error.
I don't think people in Scotland (or Scottish posters here) realised quite how despised Salmond is by many south of the border. Even Lib Dem friends of mine cannot stand him and regard him as, in their opinion a rabble rousing demagogue and virtual fascist (and Libdems try not to do "cannot stand"). Lynton Crosby must think Christmas has come early and be pinching himself that he is not dreaming.
Personally, I think Salmond has all but ensured a Tory majority.
Some Scottish posters think this is what He/SNP want as it will hasten independence, however, the last thing Scotland needs is to negotiate independence with a resentful and hostile rUK England. Tories have no time for SNP and independence and Labour will never forgive them.
Scotland may have some hard times ahead thanks to this character who seems to me be doing his level best to turn the next election into an English referendum on independence from Scotland. His reward will be Scottish Indepenence on grudging and unfavourable terms and similar hardship for Scots as the citizens of the Republic of Ireland suffered in the 20s and 30s.
Instinctively, I'm a unionist, and wanted the referendum to fail. I'm getting to the stage now where I feel F*** them. If they want independence, they can have it, so long as the terms totally screw them for a generation - unless they refund all the Barnet formula money they've had since 1979, in which case I'm happy for a fair and equitable settlement
If Labour are not the largest party I expect that they would not attempt to take power dependent on SNP support. Having been wiped out in Scotland they would not want to set themselves up to be wiped out in England too. It would make much more sense for them to leave Cameron in office but without the power to pass any legislation. They may not formally say this but count on a number of their MPs going missing when the vote on the Queen's speech comes.
If we do have a second GE very soon after the one in May because neither the Tories nor Labour can form a government, will Dave have served his full second term in the time that he is PM before dissolution?
I notice Salmond is doing a lot of media. Spare a thought for poor Angus Robertson who is supposed to be the SNP leader at Westminster. Clearly not for much longer if Salmond gets his way...
I think, assuming that Salmond has the SNPs blessing that SNP are making a catastrophic error.
I don't think people in Scotland (or Scottish posters here) realised quite how despised Salmond is by many south of the border. Even Lib Dem friends of mine cannot stand him and regard him as, in their opinion a rabble rousing demagogue and virtual fascist (and Libdems try not to do "cannot stand"). Lynton Crosby must think Christmas has come early and be pinching himself that he is not dreaming.
Personally, I think Salmond has all but ensured a Tory majority.
Some Scottish posters think this is what He/SNP want as it will hasten independence, however, the last thing Scotland needs is to negotiate independence with a resentful and hostile rUK England. Tories have no time for SNP and independence and Labour will never forgive them.
Scotland may have some hard times ahead thanks to this character who seems to me be doing his level best to turn the next election into an English referendum on independence from Scotland. His reward will be Scottish Indepenence on grudging and unfavourable terms and similar hardship for Scots as the citizens of the Republic of Ireland suffered in the 20s and 30s.
Instinctively, I'm a unionist, and wanted the referedum to fail. I'm getting to the stage now where I feel F*** them. If they want independence, they can have it, so long as the terms totally screw them for a generation.
I'm not sure Salmond makes much difference south of the border. Personally I want to see the back of Scotland and I actually think it would be good for there to be a stitch up between Labour and the SNP after the election.
I can't imagine there are too many people out there who are genuinely scared about the prospect of the SNP having some say over Westminster politics. The only people who should be scared in such circumstances are those in the Labour Party.
And this from the poster who believes that the UK is bankrupt in the long-run because it cant afford its pension obligations. The mind boggles.
It is bankrupt in the long run. We aren't in the long run, we are in the short run and talking about the ability of the UK to borrow money.
The unfunded pension obligations however will bankrupt the UK whether national debt is 80% of GDP or 220% like Japan or 0%. Because they are currently 450%.
As far as public sector pensions were concerned it was stated before the last election that their liabilities were £1,177 billion, 85% of GDP. However: David Lipsey, the chairman of Straight Statistics said... "The innocent might think that this means 85 per cent of our GDP in future is going to go to support those getting public sector pensions, leaving just 15 per cent for the rest of us. This is plain rubbish.'' "The liability to pay public sector pensions is stretched over many, many years – from now until the last existing public sector employees dies. It is a statistical howler that would make an “O” level student blush to compare this with the figure for GDP for a single year. To make matters worse, we can safely expect GDP to increase over the years to come (if it does not, neither will pensions, reducing the actual liability). So the proportion of present GDP represented by the liabilities is even less relevant. What matters, if anything, is the proportion of future GDP that they represent.''
The Treasury estimates of the cost of paying public sector pensions as 1.5% of GDP rising to 2% by 2027-28. As far as I can see, the difference between the benefits paid out to today’s pensioners from unfunded schemes and the current contributions paid by current staff is about £4.1 billion or about 0.3% of GDP. In broad terms the cost is not a massive weight hanging over us. There is not a chasm waiting for us to fall down. My understanding of the State pension is that legally it must pay out current liabilities out of current contributions and it keeps a fund the act as a balancing figure to ensure this is the case
Ever since it came to power the govt has sought to reform public sector pensions, to keep them affoordable. Contributions have increased. New cost-sharing arrangements mean that if higher pension benefits are paid or if life expectancy continues to rise more quickly than expected, the resulting cost will fall mainly on the scheme members rather than on the taxpayer. Most public sector pension schemes have increased the pension age from 60 to 65 for new entrants. Only the armed forces, police and fire schemes have kept theirs below 65. All of this was ducked by Blair. The govt have also made funded workplace pensions mandatory - something that should be born on mind when looking at wages and living costs.
@Flightpath there are various estimates on what cost the currently unfunded public sector pensions and state pension liabilities will cost and should currently be valued at in present terms.
The basis of my point is that the current Austerity agenda does not address this and is not meaningful in any way in contrast to that. Even in your best case scenario (were it true and sadly I fear it is far from true in terms of values and time scale) without addressing an increasingly unaffordable pension burden the system will fail. And it will be a catastrophic failure.
However, in terms of where we are today, the current trimming of the public sector is meaningless to this. It is not going to help the future potential position and it is not necessary for the current position. The UK Is well within its potential borrowing limit, well within it including the necessary provision for major economic shocks.
The only long term solution is to address the entitlement to state pensions and the level of public sector pension provision. It may also be necessary to place an Oregon Plan on the NHS at some future point as well. More importantly neither of these is actually possible politically. Only when the system fails will it ever be addressed.
As such, accepting this inevitable outcome, all you can do is manage things as well as possible until that moment. If Debt to GDP will shrink without cutting budgets, don't cut. Debt to GDP will be shrinking without cuts in the next parliament. Therefore no cuts are needed.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
Accepting a seat in the House of Lords is a disciplinary offence resulting in automatic expulsion from the Scottish National Party.
One feels not forever though. The SNP is changing -it is preparing itself to become a force in Westminster politics. That is a big change, and wholly to be welcomed -Westminster requires new blood. However, its supporters need to keep up -none of you seem to have got over the 'denial' stage of grief at losing the indyref.
That still doesn't address why, if it's so impossible to "live on borrowing", why RIGHT NOW we're "living on borrowing" and the sky ISN'T falling in.
Have you ever tried renewing an overdraft using that logic?
Borrowing is a good thing as long as it is sustainable. Without borrowing there is no saving. It should put funds to better use if properly managed.
This is what blue chip companies do that maintain a constant debt/equity gearing and borrow every year. It makes sense if you are growing and enables you to grow faster if you invest it in growth assets.
If GDP is growing at 3% pa, then government can run a deficit of 3% a year (i.e., borrow £60bn a year) and maintain a constant debt/GDP ratio. There is nothing admirable or desirable about eliminating the deficit if the economy is growing. But it should be invested in the future (education, R&D, infrastructure) rather than consumed now.
Reducing the debt pile does have advantages- lower interest payments. I think we are spending half as much as we do on education on our interest.
I agree it means lower interest payments but at the cost of lower growth (assuming the borrowing is invested wisely). Paying down debt means you end up with a smaller cake albeit with a smaller slice taken out of it by the interest payments.
One's intuition on debt and deficit can be misleading. You need to do a simple financial model (eg in Excel) to see the effect of different assumptions.
Paul It is perfectly possible a Tory majority could lead to devomax in return for EVEL, but mathematically it is highly unlikely, the Tories need to increase their support for a majority since 2010 not just retain it, I also remain of the view it will be the DUP not the SNP who will hold the balance of power, possibly with the LDs too, and they are already talking up more funding for Ulster
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
And don't forget about Ukip!
The solution to your worries is, as part of an constitutional settlement for the UK, to abolish the expensive,unnecessary, anachronism that is the House of Lords.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
Accepting a seat in the House of Lords is a disciplinary offence resulting in automatic expulsion from the Scottish National Party.
One feels not forever though. The SNP is changing -it is preparing itself to become a force in Westminster politics. That is a big change, and wholly to be welcomed -Westminster requires new blood. However, its supporters need to keep up -none of you seem to have got over the 'denial' stage of grief at losing the indyref.
The SNP won't change this one. It's pretty much as set in stone as the desire for Independence. Accepting a seat in the Lords will always mean expulsion from the SNP.
Abolition of the Lords may well be Scotland's parting gift to rUK.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
And don't forget about Ukip!
The solution to your worries is, as part of an constitutional settlement for the UK, to abolish the expensive,unnecessary, anachronism that is the House of Lords.
Agreed - though I think some sort of mechanism for allowing experts to review and comment on legislation is needed.
[John]Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw, even tried to hand the chancellor a Cornish pasty to give him strength to answer the question
He really is one of the most grandstanding self serving objectionable MPs out there. I will never forget at the height of the financial crisis, when questioning a top bank executive, he took it upon himself to spend a huge amount of time shouting about how he had problems with his own current account, which of course he knew the top banker wouldn't be able to really give him any info on. It was a pathetic stunt. Rather than using the opportunity to ask detailed questions about the decisions the banker will have had control / info about i.e. general policies / vision of the bank.
"Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming."
Are there any SNP posters who treat their politicians like human beings and not deities? Is it a Scottish thing? Some of the Tories used to be like this with Thatcher. I keep thinking voting for these people is quite inadequate. They should be building statues.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
[John]Mann, the MP for Bassetlaw, even tried to hand the chancellor a Cornish pasty to give him strength to answer the question
He really is one of the most grandstanding objectionable MPs out there. I will never forget at the height of the financial crisis, when questioning a top bank executive, he took it upon himself to spend a huge amount of time shouting about how he had problems with his own current account, which of course he knew the top banker wouldn't be able to really give him any info on. It was a pathetic stunt. Rather than using the opportunity to ask detailed questions about the decisions the banker will have had control / info about i.e. general policies / vision of the bank.
I don't like Mann only Danczuk beats him in my crap Lab MPs list
@Flightpath there are various estimates on what cost the currently unfunded public sector pensions and state pension liabilities will cost and should currently be valued at in present terms.
The basis of my point is that the current Austerity agenda does not address this and is not meaningful in any way in contrast to that. Even in your best case scenario (were it true and sadly I fear it is far from true in terms of values and time scale) without addressing an increasingly unaffordable pension burden the system will fail. And it will be a catastrophic failure.
etc
As such, accepting this inevitable outcome, all you can do is manage things as well as possible until that moment. If Debt to GDP will shrink without cutting budgets, don't cut. Debt to GDP will be shrinking without cuts in the next parliament. Therefore no cuts are needed.
You are talking nonsense. An economy needs to run at a surplus over the economic cycle. Additionally our economy needs to eradicate its structural deficit. This government is doing this at a sustainable pace. Cuts are nothing to do with debt - it is to do with the unsustainable structural deficit the previous government was running.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
When will they get it that the average elector south of Hadrians Wall is no more interested in Derek Hatton Alex Salmond and whatever her name is who is official leader of the SNP, than they are in Peter Robinson and whoever is the deputy leader of the NI assembly leader these days, except when they p*ss us off and then the feelings are negative.
Whatever happens the other 591 MPs can comfortably outvote SNP on anything and with few in any MPs from Tory or Labour in Scotland neither will care much about Scotlands interests and backbenchers from both will co-operate with each other to frustrate wee ecks plans if needed. Either they take the Labour whip or become an irrelevance.
"Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming."
Are there any SNP posters who treat their politicians like human beings and not deities? Is it a Scottish thing? Some of the Tories used to be like this with Thatcher. I keep thinking voting for these people is quite inadequate. They should be building statues.
Roger, just look at his achievements.
And speak for yourself. Have you not re-named every single room in your house after that self-promoting windbag Mandela: and if not, why not? Are you some kind of racist?
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Another interesting by-product of the virtual extinction of SLAB and the LibDems in Scotland, is the impact on the House of Lords.
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
Accepting a seat in the House of Lords is a disciplinary offence resulting in automatic expulsion from the Scottish National Party.
One feels not forever though. The SNP is changing -it is preparing itself to become a force in Westminster politics. That is a big change, and wholly to be welcomed -Westminster requires new blood. However, its supporters need to keep up -none of you seem to have got over the 'denial' stage of grief at losing the indyref.
The SNP won't change this one. It's pretty much as set in stone as the desire for Independence. Accepting a seat in the Lords will always mean expulsion from the SNP.
Abolition of the Lords may well be Scotland's parting gift to rUK.
I agree, it is as set in stone as the desire for independence -and that will eventually go too. The desire to leave the UK is inversely proportional to success and recognition within it. It's a deeply held sense of feeling like a second class citizen. When that feeling ceases, so will the desire for independence.
To think these muppets want to run the country.....
Rachel Reeves ✔ @RachelReevesMP A @UKLabour govt will scrap the #BedroomTax & @scottishlabour will use the savings for £175 million Scotland Cares fund to tackle poverty
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said. Someone merely asked to be King doesn't ship up (ceremonially at Hastings no less IIRC) with an army of 80,000.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Hasn't stuck with everyone. Some us still remember the illegal and treasonous deposing of the rightful and anointed Defender of the Faith James II :-)
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Are you saying there will be a political takeover of the UK by Scotland? Bring it on I say. I'd rather be run by the Scots than the US.
To think these muppets want to run the country.....
Rachel Reeves ✔ @RachelReevesMP A @UKLabour govt will scrap the #BedroomTax & @scottishlabour will use the savings for £175 million Scotland Cares fund to tackle poverty
That was discussed earlier, possibly on the previous thread. The Scottish Gmt is currently paying it out of its discretionary budget, so would have savings to spedn on other things if the BT was cancelled. However the actual sum was IIRC £42m or so, so it's not much better off ...
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Are you saying there will be a political takeover of the UK by Scotland? Bring it on I say. I'd rather be run by the Scots than the US.
I think it's more what happens if the SNP promote a policy which is actually demonstrably popular with the English, never mind the Scots, while holding the balance of power. For some reason people are reluctant to consider that possibility, though it is an interesting one to think through.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Are you saying there will be a political takeover of the UK by Scotland? Bring it on I say. I'd rather be run by the Scots than the US.
Ah so the Scottish government is paying the rest of the rent for people on housing benefit with spare rooms to the tune of £42 million.
And if Labour decide to pay the rent of people with spare rooms in the UK they will therefore be handing the Scottish government an extra £42 million.
At least for the first two years or so before the IMF are called in and the Greek style cuts start.....then they will be paying for their prescriptions, the "hotel" element of in hospital stays, and £20 to visit a doctor as well as finding most bus and train services up there stop running as the subsidy goes.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Are you saying there will be a political takeover of the UK by Scotland? Bring it on I say. I'd rather be run by the Scots than the US.
I think it's more what happens if the SNP promote a policy which is actually demonstrably popular with the English, never mind the Scots, while holding the balance of power. For some reason people are reluctant to consider that possibility, though it is an interesting one to think through.
I'm not reluctant to consider it. Bring on the tartan army I say -it's good for democracy, good for participation, good for the UK. Independence was a sulk. Don't leave the UK, run the UK -it's nothing you haven't done before.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course you know that Holland didn't take over England. The English made William their king. William agreed because he wanted to fight Catholics and England had the larger resources.
Hence what I said.
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
Hasn't stuck with everyone. Some us still remember the illegal and treasonous deposing of the rightful and anointed Defender of the Faith James II :-)
I hought Jack W was the House Jacobite!
Personally I'm very glad that the Protestants kept control. Would you really like England/Wales to have been like the pre-1980's (or thereabouts) Irish Republic?
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
I've heard a rumour that the Stuart dynasty lives on inside PB.com's walls.
Ah so the Scottish government is paying the rest of the rent for people on housing benefit with spare rooms to the tune of £42 million.
And if Labour decide to pay the rent of people with spare rooms in the UK they will therefore be handing the Scottish government an extra £42 million.
At least for the first two years or so before the IMF are called in and the Greek style cuts start.....then they will be paying for their prescriptions, the "hotel" element of in hospital stays, and £20 to visit a doctor as well as finding most bus and train services up there stop running as the subsidy goes.
No, they're not handing it a single penny - simply freeing up money that is already in the Scottish budget.
They keep asking the same people as it's the third I've done in a few months.
Tends to suggest that randomised phone polling is far superior as there is too much self selection involved in net registration for online polling.
Certainly it's starting to raise some questions that eat into their credibility....
Yes it's desperately over-representing people who give a shit about form filling.
Twas ever thus...
I think the problem is with their churn on the sample.
I probably did every YouGov in January. Haven't done one since, did every one in October, none between October and Jan.
This is probably why they get fairly consistent outcomes in their daily polling. It may be intentional (get to see how opinions change over a number of weeks) but it doesn't help the confidence in their sampling.
@tnewtondunn: 'As we settle down at a table, Salmond orders a bottle of pink champagne – “to toast my book”'; @NewStatesman. Man of the people.
Salmond is playing his role in this so damn well. It's working perfectly.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming.
What has Sturgeon to do with English voters.
Why do you think the Dutch Conquest of England in 1688 was a success? Tiny little Holland taking over England, a country with 8 times it's population (at the time). Little tiny Holland only a few decades from establishing itself and becoming independent from Spain.
It's all about the spin.
Of course when the Scottish Stuart dynasty took over the English crown, they avoided the old country as far as possible!
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Of course they didn't.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
Can someone from the Labour side who thinks ending the spare-room subsidy is so iniquitous please tell my friend why he has to wait years for a house to come available to allow his kids not to be all bunked up in one room? Just because people who don't have a need of the room will still be allowed to keep it - and have the cost for that room paid for out of my friend's small contribution to Income Tax? Because he is spitting mad about it....
Good post,two sides to all decisions,winners and losers.
Interesting talk over here in PB about scotland taking over the country, well I say that if Labour surrender to the SNP then at least they should make Salmond PM just to reverse his blackmail on him. At that point the SNP will die a painful political death as it has to keep scotland in the UK in order to keep Salmond as PM.
They keep asking the same people as it's the third I've done in a few months.
Tends to suggest that randomised phone polling is far superior as there is too much self selection involved in net registration for online polling.
Certainly it's starting to raise some questions that eat into their credibility....
Yes it's desperately over-representing people who give a shit about form filling.
Twas ever thus...
Was it though? How many people now are utterly invisible to the pollsters? And even if they can see them, how many people like me never answer a call from anyone whose number they don't recognise? I take the view that if it is remotely important, they will leave a voice-mail telling me who they are and what they want. If not, they will leave a trail of having tried to contact you dozens of times.....
That was never an option say twenty five years ago. Then you had the phone stuck to the wall. No idea who it was calling you. It might even be important. So you answered it.
Interesting talk over here in PB about scotland taking over the country, well I say that if Labour surrender to the SNP then at least they should make Salmond PM just to reverse his blackmail on him. At that point the SNP will die a painful political death as it has to keep scotland in the UK in order to keep Salmond as PM.
There will be no doubt who is in charge when Miliband is summoned to Edinburgh in order to give his capitulation to Nicola in person.
They keep asking the same people as it's the third I've done in a few months.
Tends to suggest that randomised phone polling is far superior as there is too much self selection involved in net registration for online polling.
Certainly it's starting to raise some questions that eat into their credibility....
Yes it's desperately over-representing people who give a shit about form filling.
Twas ever thus...
Was it though? How many people now are utterly invisible to the pollsters? And even if they can see them, how many people like me never answer a call from anyone whose number they don't recognise? I take the view that if it is remotely important, they will leave a voice-mail telling me who they are and what they want. If not, they will leave a trail of having tried to contact you dozens of times.....
That was never an option say twenty five years ago. Then you had the phone stuck to the wall. No idea who it was calling you. It might even be important. So you answered it.
Comments
As well as the many grandees who are retiring at a normal time in their careers, there are the next generation of early forced retirees e.g. the Alexanders. Many of these voluntary and forced retirees will be expecting H of L seats.
To complicate matters further the SNP with a large block of Westminster MPs, would theoretically be entitled to a decent number of H of L seats. Given the SNPs anti-H of L stance, in normal circumstances you would expect them not to take up any seats. However, the SNP may decide to take up the seats so they can protect Scotland’s interests.
I’m surprised the MSM and political commentators haven’t focused on this second potential tartan invasion of Westminster. No doubt Max Hastings et al will eventually start bleating about this.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009727/Tory-MP-Priti-Patel-accused-election-rival-sending-misogynist-racist-tweets-branding-sexy-Bond-villain.html
I will agree with him that she is sexy as hell.
"We won't support Tories under any circumstances" Civilised?
180 bn extra spending. Efficient?
Businesses would show this as capital expenditure and not account for it on the P&L.
Government doesn't seem to distinguish between spending and investing. Tories say spending, Labour say investing.
Spending on consumption (pensions, NHS, benefits, defence etc ) should be financed out of taxation. So should interest payments.
The principle is clear. The execution is difficult. How do you prioritise and quantify the returns? How do you resist dipping into the pot for extra pensions, NHS etc. And you have to manage the economic cycle. So I am not saying it is straight-forward. But the principle is.
The contribution rate you mention is only for those earning over £111k pa isn't it?
It's fun seeing them swallow the SNP strategy hook, line and sinker.
I'm still curious as to how such information which must surely be kept confidential by the hospital makes its way into the public domain legitimately.
And it's massively outselling Farage's book which came out the day before.
Has anyone told Nicola that?
And about 75% of Scots think it highly civilised anyway not to do a deal with Tories. That's democracy in action for you.
Has anyone told him?
I don't think people in Scotland (or Scottish posters here) realised quite how despised Salmond is by many south of the border. Even Lib Dem friends of mine cannot stand him and regard him as, in their opinion a rabble rousing demagogue and virtual fascist (and Libdems try not to do "cannot stand"). Lynton Crosby must think Christmas has come early and be pinching himself that he is not dreaming.
Personally, I think Salmond has all but ensured a Tory majority.
Some Scottish posters think this is what He/SNP want as it will hasten independence, however, the last thing Scotland needs is to negotiate independence with a resentful and hostile rUK England. Tories have no time for SNP and independence and Labour will never forgive them.
Scotland may have some hard times ahead thanks to this character who seems to me be doing his level best to turn the next election into an English referendum on independence from Scotland. His reward will be Scottish Indepenence on grudging and unfavourable terms and similar hardship for Scots as the citizens of the Republic of Ireland suffered in the 20s and 30s.
Instinctively, I'm a unionist, and wanted the referendum to fail. I'm getting to the stage now where I feel F*** them. If they want independence, they can have it, so long as the terms totally screw them for a generation - unless they refund all the Barnet formula money they've had since 1979, in which case I'm happy for a fair and equitable settlement
Has anyone told him?
The bloke (Hosier?) on Daily Politics yesterday said it was written into the SNP constitution that they wouldn't support a Tory govt
I can't imagine there are too many people out there who are genuinely scared about the prospect of the SNP having some say over Westminster politics. The only people who should be scared in such circumstances are those in the Labour Party.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3009799/Fresh-blow-Farage-Ukip-candidate-quits-protest-MEP-compared-Muslim-minister-Abu-Hamza.html
EICIPM Eck in charge
However:
David Lipsey, the chairman of Straight Statistics said...
"The innocent might think that this means 85 per cent of our GDP in future is going to go to support those getting public sector pensions, leaving just 15 per cent for the rest of us. This is plain rubbish.''
"The liability to pay public sector pensions is stretched over many, many years – from now until the last existing public sector employees dies. It is a statistical howler that would make an “O” level student blush to compare this with the figure for GDP for a single year. To make matters worse, we can safely expect GDP to increase over the years to come (if it does not, neither will pensions, reducing the actual liability). So the proportion of present GDP represented by the liabilities is even less relevant. What matters, if anything, is the proportion of future GDP that they represent.''
The Treasury estimates of the cost of paying public sector pensions as 1.5% of GDP rising to 2% by 2027-28.
As far as I can see, the difference between the benefits paid out to today’s pensioners from unfunded schemes and the current contributions paid by current staff is about £4.1 billion or about 0.3% of GDP. In broad terms the cost is not a massive weight hanging over us. There is not a chasm waiting for us to fall down.
My understanding of the State pension is that legally it must pay out current liabilities out of current contributions and it keeps a fund the act as a balancing figure to ensure this is the case
Ever since it came to power the govt has sought to reform public sector pensions, to keep them affoordable. Contributions have increased. New cost-sharing arrangements mean that if higher pension benefits are paid or if life expectancy continues to rise more quickly than expected, the resulting cost will fall mainly on the scheme members rather than on the taxpayer. Most public sector pension schemes have increased the pension age from 60 to 65 for new entrants. Only the armed forces, police and fire schemes have kept theirs below 65.
All of this was ducked by Blair. The govt have also made funded workplace pensions mandatory - something that should be born on mind when looking at wages and living costs.
The basis of my point is that the current Austerity agenda does not address this and is not meaningful in any way in contrast to that. Even in your best case scenario (were it true and sadly I fear it is far from true in terms of values and time scale) without addressing an increasingly unaffordable pension burden the system will fail. And it will be a catastrophic failure.
However, in terms of where we are today, the current trimming of the public sector is meaningless to this. It is not going to help the future potential position and it is not necessary for the current position. The UK Is well within its potential borrowing limit, well within it including the necessary provision for major economic shocks.
The only long term solution is to address the entitlement to state pensions and the level of public sector pension provision. It may also be necessary to place an Oregon Plan on the NHS at some future point as well. More importantly neither of these is actually possible politically. Only when the system fails will it ever be addressed.
As such, accepting this inevitable outcome, all you can do is manage things as well as possible until that moment. If Debt to GDP will shrink without cutting budgets, don't cut. Debt to GDP will be shrinking without cuts in the next parliament. Therefore no cuts are needed.
Two voting intention questions:
Q1: How will you vote in GE?
Q2: How will you vote in GE in your own constituency?
Really? there's so much that militates against the SNP having a stable coalition with anyone South of the border.
The mixture is too volatile, even if the numbers were to add up.
Abolition of the Lords may well be Scotland's parting gift to rUK.
Also questions on most important election issue and which party best for a range of policy areas
Plus certainty to vote.
It is
Labour 271
SDLP 274
Green 275
SNP 320
PC 321
Respect 322
Tory 287
Lib Dem 312
UKIP 313
DUP 322
So Lady Sylvia Hermon gets to decide the Gov't.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/6381720/tories-ahead-labour-gay-voters-pinknews-poll.html
I just got the two "How will you vote?" questions and then a survey on water!
He really is one of the most grandstanding self serving objectionable MPs out there. I will never forget at the height of the financial crisis, when questioning a top bank executive, he took it upon himself to spend a huge amount of time shouting about how he had problems with his own current account, which of course he knew the top banker wouldn't be able to really give him any info on. It was a pathetic stunt. Rather than using the opportunity to ask detailed questions about the decisions the banker will have had control / info about i.e. general policies / vision of the bank.
Right now the Westminster media should be 100% focused on how well Sturgeon is playing with average English votes (highest rated leader UK wide) and how intelligent yet still popular she comes across.
But they're completely taken in by the McGuffin.
They won't even see Nicola coming."
Are there any SNP posters who treat their politicians like human beings and not deities? Is it a Scottish thing? Some of the Tories used to be like this with Thatcher. I keep thinking voting for these people is quite inadequate. They should be building statues.
She had to double check when I said Lab on immigration!!
It's all about the spin.
Dave - I'll bid £1.2bn
Ed - £1.5bn
Dave - £5bn for Ulster votes!
What the hell, it's only debt - £10bn.
I've heard some f8ckwit historical comparisons on here but that really does take the biscuit.
Good king Billy and Nicola Sturgeon!!! ROFL
Ed Is Crap Is Ma'am's Prime Minister In Control Is Eck
Wait til Ed does a deal with the SNP and the money starts to flow north.
There'll suddenly be an army of Manns.
Not to mention the London tendency watching their householders get scalped...!
Before you know it they'll be voting with the tories!
How on earth are we going to rely on Yougov if they only canvass persons such as yourself and Big John?
Not exactly swing voters.
Whatever happens the other 591 MPs can comfortably outvote SNP on anything and with few in any MPs from Tory or Labour in Scotland neither will care much about Scotlands interests and backbenchers from both will co-operate with each other to frustrate wee ecks plans if needed. Either they take the Labour whip or become an irrelevance.
And speak for yourself. Have you not re-named every single room in your house after that self-promoting windbag Mandela: and if not, why not? Are you some kind of racist?
Rachel Reeves ✔ @RachelReevesMP
A @UKLabour govt will scrap the #BedroomTax & @scottishlabour will use the savings for £175 million Scotland Cares fund to tackle poverty
C4 News FactCheck ✔ @FactCheck
@RachelReevesMP @UKLabour @scottishlabour What savings? Won't you have to spend more?
11:23 AM - 24 Mar 2015
It's all about the spin.
Call it a Glorious Revolution and 300 years the conquered won't even question what happened.
Most countries where invaders are "invited" (think Vietnam or Iraq) don't fall for it. It takes a really good level of spin to make it stick.
They keep asking the same people as it's the third I've done in a few months.
Tends to suggest that randomised phone polling is far superior as there is too much self selection involved in net registration for online polling.
How about The Democratic Renaissance
And if Labour decide to pay the rent of people with spare rooms in the UK they will therefore be handing the Scottish government an extra £42 million.
At least for the first two years or so before the IMF are called in and the Greek style cuts start.....then they will be paying for their prescriptions, the "hotel" element of in hospital stays, and £20 to visit a doctor as well as finding most bus and train services up there stop running as the subsidy goes.
Twas ever thus...
Indeed did James I ever go back? Or Charles I?
Personally I'm very glad that the Protestants kept control. Would you really like England/Wales to have been like the pre-1980's (or thereabouts) Irish Republic?
Courageous.
I probably did every YouGov in January. Haven't done one since, did every one in October, none between October and Jan.
This is probably why they get fairly consistent outcomes in their daily polling. It may be intentional (get to see how opinions change over a number of weeks) but it doesn't help the confidence in their sampling.
There were a great many ready and waiting to lynch them.
At that point the SNP will die a painful political death as it has to keep scotland in the UK in order to keep Salmond as PM.
That was never an option say twenty five years ago. Then you had the phone stuck to the wall. No idea who it was calling you. It might even be important. So you answered it.
Still painful for the LibDems though. No sign of any swingback to them.