FPT I remember the post-analysis from POTUS 2012 when the consensus was that the republicans were doomed so long as they remained captured by their extreme Christians. That bit of their problem at least seems to have receded a little.
Evangelical Christians have accepted Trump's contrition - we're humans and we sin/repent.
Mormons are understandably more Umm, but the Utah GOP have said they'd back him.
SCOTUS is the key here. It's enormously important and I fear that very many PBers simply don't get it as a swing point.
Is there evidence that swing voters are motivated by the supreme court? You'd imagine they'd be unswingable if they thought it was an extremely important issue
After the tape - Trump needed to recover his base first - he seems to have largely done it. The media fussing has barely dented him, and generated more DK who are still Shy Trumpers.
SCOTUS is much wider than Roe vs Wade - it's death penalty and loads of other things we aren't even thinking of yet.
The liberal left are in charge of:
- education, via unions, faculties et al - the media - most multinationals in favour of globalisation
Plus prospect of immigration from alien cultures ie Arabs/ME
The view was that without SCOTUS - and a Democrat in office - the GOP was buggered. Social change would be too far gone, and the voting base would be swung massively towards Muslims. Immigration, liberal ideas et al would be embedded and America would fundamentally change.
Makes you wonder afresh how on Earth the Republicans ended up with Trump. And not just Trump, but Carson, Cruz, Rubio - all in their way mad, bad, and/or dangerous to know.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
Cobblers - he was ridiculed from here to Mars at the time. An actor who was known for Westerns and folksy filler on horseback. That he'd been elected to office was dismissed.
Reagan was my favourite POTUS for bundles of reasons - but he wasn't ever seen as some great man in advance.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Hargreaves have a free guide you can request here:
www.hl.co.uk/pensions/drawdown
If you are Ok with managing your investments and aren't going to get tempted into spending all the money on the first day, I think it is well worth investigating. It is my plan for the DC part of my pension, which I will be able to draw in about two years time. I wouldn't, however, think that trading a final salary arrangement for it is likely to be sensible?
Thanks Ian. I am a bit wary with most of it being final salary , but by same tokemn it is also a gamble in that I have seen colleagues last only a short time after retiring and that is most of your final salry money gone, wife would get 50%. It is a shedload of money that would at least go to wife/family if I don't last a long time. Wouls also need to b ebad investments to burn up that amount of cash, and if I last a long time I reckon once you reach a certain point you will not be spending much.
FPT I remember the post-analysis from POTUS 2012 when the consensus was that the republicans were doomed so long as they remained captured by their extreme Christians. That bit of their problem at least seems to have receded a little.
Evangelical Christians have accepted Trump's contrition - we're humans and we sin/repent.
Mormons are understandably more Umm, but the Utah GOP have said they'd back him.
SCOTUS is the key here. It's enormously important and I fear that very many PBers simply don't get it as a swing point.
After the tape - Trump needed to recover his base first - he seems to have largely done it. The media fussing has barely dented him, and generated more DK who are still Shy Trumpers.
SCOTUS is much wider than Roe vs Wade - it's death penalty and loads of other things we aren't even thinking of yet.
The liberal left are in charge of:
- education, via unions, faculties et al - the media - most multinationals in favour of globalisation
Plus prospect of immigration from alien cultures ie Arabs/ME
The view was that without SCOTUS - and a Democrat in office - the GOP was buggered. Social change would be too far gone, and the voting base would be swung massively towards Muslims. Immigration, liberal ideas et al would be embedded and America would fundamentally change.
Makes you wonder afresh how on Earth the Republicans ended up with Trump. And not just Trump, but Carson, Cruz, Rubio - all in their way mad, bad, and/or dangerous to know.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
Cobblers - he was ridiculed from here to Mars at the time. An actor who was known for Westerns and folksy filler on horseback. That he'd been elected to office was dismissed.
Reagan was my favourite POTUS for bundles of reasons - but he wasn't ever seen as some great man in advance.
So, you didn't respect Reagan? I'm surprised, I did.
Excellent stuff - many thanks. If the LDs don't take second place here questions about Farron's leadership will start being asked, surely.
Yes. The LDs are treating this as a marginal seat for them and throwing in resources to do well. Labour seem to be barely bothered. With the Jo Cox seat voting on same day, maybe Labour see it as not worth the effort? But there is a chance (slim) that the media may point out how the main opposition party is slipping down in an election, worse if Labour lose their deposit.
Labour won 13% in 2010 in Witney. If they can't beat that then they really are in trouble. At their peak, in 1997, they won over 30% and have finished ahead of the Lib Dems in four of the six elections since (and including) 1992. It might be a weak seat for them but it's not one where they're badly placed vs the Lib Dems.
Not necessarily true. Once the electorate figure out who the challenger is in a by election, the third party gets squeezed. There are next to no consequences nationally.
That's true but if the principal party of opposition is overtaken by the party starting fourth, it's still a poor result. There's no good reason for Labour not to be the challenger: they start well-placed and have the historic results to back up that it wasn't simply a blip in 2015. It ought to be Labour squeezing the LD vote.
That would be very true if Labour were putting in the same effort as the LibDems - but ,of course, they are not!
And whose fault is that?
Meanwhile the first invitation of the day drops into my inbox, with details of dedicated coaches going there from London on Sunday 0830 and on polling day
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
In the 1980 election campaign those on the Left didnt. The same nonsense being pumped out about Trump was being pumped out then. madman, warmonger, clueless B film actor
I was in a state of unshock when at the end of 1981 Reagan hadnt nuked the Soviets. The same garbage continued throughout his presidency by which time he had brought the Cold War to an end.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
I think the villainisation of Trump is similar to what Reagan got.
I actually think Trump is more like Blair, a charlatan, a showman, rapacious and packed with iffy ideas. The only difference between them is their target audience as a root to power. Trump plays the tough guy, Tony the nice guy.
And I am reasonably confident that plenty of Ohio barflies see this as the sort of behaviour that would render Trump as the bar asshole in their preferred haunts.
I've said it on an earlier thread - but it doesn't bother me an iota. I worked at BT sales offices in the 90s where this was commonplace pub banter, and depending on the company at others.
I think it's a massive fuss about nothing for those who either hear it and dismiss - or care about other stuff a lot more. It shrieks chatterati class outrage who don't get it as a cultural thing. Sex in the City was very ribald. A Twitter friend was a male stripper and most amusing on his hen night experiences.
I simply think it's an attitude divide - women who aren't bothered give as good as they get - in kind. What currency 'in kind' comes in is another matter.
Sexual assault is not a "massive fuss about nothing". I have been a victim of it. Your willingness to confuse ribald joking about sex and hen nights and people boasting about sexual crimes and the sexual attraction of young under-age girls is frankly appalling.
If you cannot see the difference, there is nothing more you and I can say on this topic.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Google 'Invested Annuity' too, can go up and down but better rate than standard annuity. I think only Aviva doing them now, LV and Pru have stopped. If you're lucky enough to have final salary, look carefully before moving out of it. DYOR.
Thanks for that , I have mainly final salary but have £150K+ in DC as well. As other post , biggest concern is popping my clogs early and leaving all that cash to the company, .
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
In the 1980 election campaign those on the Left didnt. The same nonsense being pumped out about Trump was being pumped out then. madman, warmonger, clueless B film actor
I was in a state of unshock when at the end of 1981 Reagan hadnt nuked the Soviets. The same garbage continued throughout his presidency by which time he had brought the Cold War to an end.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Google 'Invested Annuity' too, can go up and down but better rate than standard annuity. I think only Aviva doing them now, LV and Pru have stopped. If you're lucky enough to have final salary, look carefully before moving out of it. DYOR.
Thanks for that , I have mainly final salary but have £150K+ in DC as well. As other post , biggest concern is popping my clogs early and leaving all that cash to the company, .
Drawdown can leave your family with some cash - see the MSE site or booklet.
Is there evidence that swing voters are motivated by the supreme court? You'd imagine they'd be unswingable if they thought it was an extremely important issue
After the tape - Trump needed to recover hmpers.
SCOTUS is much wider than Roe vs Wade - it's death penalty and loads of other things we aren't even thinking of yet.
The liberal left are in charge of:
- education, via unions, faculties et al - the media - most multinationals in favour of globalisation
Plus prospect of immigration from alien cultures ie Arabs/ME
The view was that without SCOTUS - and a Democrat inndamentally change.
Makes you wonder afresh how on Earth the Republicans ended up with Trump. And not just Trump, but Carson, Cruz, Rubio - all in their way mad, bad, and/or dangerous to know.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
In the 1980 election campaign those on the Left didnt. The same nonsense being pumped out about Trump was being pumped out then. madman, warmonger, clueless B film actor
I was in a state of unshock when at the end of 1981 Reagan hadnt nuked the Soviets. The same garbage continued throughout his presidency by which time he had brought the Cold War to an end.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
Excellent stuff - many thanks. If the LDs don't take second place here questions about Farron's leadership will start being asked, surely.
Yes. The LDs are treating this as a marginal seat for them and throwing in resources to do well. Labour seem to be barely bothered. With the Jo Cox seat voting on same day, maybe Labour see it as not worth the effort? But there is a chance (slim) that the media may point out how the main opposition party is slipping down in an election, worse if Labour lose their deposit.
Labour won 13% in 2010 in Witney. If they can't beat that then they really are in trouble. At their peak, in 1997, they won over 30% and have finished ahead of the Lib Dems in four of the six elections since (and including) 1992. It might be a weak seat for them but it's not one where they're badly placed vs the Lib Dems.
Not necessarily true. Once the electorate figure out who the challenger is in a by election, the third party gets squeezed. There are next to no consequences nationally.
That's true but if the principal party of opposition is overtaken by the party starting fourth, it's still a poor result. There's no good reason for Labour not to be the challenger: they start well-placed and have the historic results to back up that it wasn't simply a blip in 2015. It ought to be Labour squeezing the LD vote.
That would be very true if Labour were putting in the same effort as the LibDems - but ,of course, they are not!
And whose fault is that?
Indeed - but it would mean that the result is unlikely to be indicative of the underlying support of the two parties in the seat, but rather a reflection of the resources invested in the campaign.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Hargreaves have a free guide you can request here:
www.hl.co.uk/pensions/drawdown
If you are Ok with managing your investments and aren't going to get tempted into spending all the money on the first day, I think it is well worth investigating. It is my plan for the DC part of my pension, which I will be able to draw in about two years time. I wouldn't, however, think that trading a final salary arrangement for it is likely to be sensible?
Thanks Ian. I am a bit wary with most of it being final salary , but by same tokemn it is also a gamble in that I have seen colleagues last only a short time after retiring and that is most of your final salry money gone, wife would get 50%. It is a shedload of money that would at least go to wife/family if I don't last a long time. Wouls also need to b ebad investments to burn up that amount of cash, and if I last a long time I reckon once you reach a certain point you will not be spending much.
Mr. G., The wife would only get 50%? That is the position I am in. When I pop my clogs Herself will get 50% of my gross pension, indexed linked, for as long as she lives, guaranteed. So I know she would be provided for and be able to live comfortably and without worrying about the state of the markets etc.. That gives us both a great deal of peace of mind. Might I suggest that there is more to pension planning than money.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
I thought this could have been true at the beginning of the campaign.
But as time has worn on, his utter lack of fitness for high office, coupled with his misogyny and willingness to play the racist card means I do not think he can supported - even against Clinton.
The grabbing pussy talk is objectionable not because of the word pussy but because it reveals a tolerance and even admiration of sexual violence.
I've been in the odd rugby locker room myself and never heard anyone actually boast of this.
Exactly. Banter is just that and, in my experience, is usually about what people would *like* to do rather than than what they have done (or claim to have done), and even then, is still kept within the bounds of consensuality. i find it disturbing that he clearly felt that these were acceptable comments to make in private, and still feels so. It's all the more disturbing that he made similar comments in his rallies about shooting people on Fifth and not losing support. It reveals the mindset of someone who has no idea where the boundaries of behaviour lie, and that's extremely dangerous in a senior politician.
Excellent stuff - many thanks. If the LDs don't take second place here questions about Farron's leadership will start being asked, surely.
Yes. The LDs are treating this as a marginal seat for them and throwing in resources to do well. Labour seem to be barely bothered. With the Jo Cox seat voting on same day, maybe Labour see it as not worth the effort? But there is a chance (slim) that the media may point out how the main opposition party is slipping down in an election, worse if Labour lose their deposit.
Labour won 13% in 2010 in Witney. If they can't beat that then they really are in trouble. At their peak, in 1997, they won over 30% and have finished ahead of the Lib Dems in four of the six elections since (and including) 1992. It might be a weak seat for them but it's not one where they're badly placed vs the Lib Dems.
Not necessarily true. Once the electorate figure out who the challenger is in a by election, the third party gets squeezed. There are next to no consequences nationally.
That's true but if the principal party of opposition is overtaken by the party starting fourth, it's still a poor result. There's no good reason for Labour not to be the challenger: they start well-placed and have the historic results to back up that it wasn't simply a blip in 2015. It ought to be Labour squeezing the LD vote.
That would be very true if Labour were putting in the same effort as the LibDems - but ,of course, they are not!
And whose fault is that?
Indeed - but it would mean that the result is unlikely to be indicative of the underlying support of the two parties in the seat, but rather a reflection of the resources invested in the campaign.
The thing about fighting elections is that a lot of effort is needed to make a small difference - but sometimes a small difference is all the difference. Your observation could be said about any election campaign anywhere. But the reality is that if the LibDems don't have a following wind (and it is hard to detect one right now) then the difference lots of activists will make is on the margin only.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
''I was in a state of unshock when at the end of 1981 Reagan hadnt nuked the Soviets. The same garbage continued throughout his presidency by which time he had brought the Cold War to an end.''
In a documentary about Reagan it emerged he detested nuclear weapons and when he met Gorbachev stunned him with immediate offers to slash warhead numbers.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
It is remarkably naive to think that Trump won't act in his own interests just because he's not a political insider.
Look at Berlusconi for what rich men, with no political experience but with plenty of commercial, legal and other interests to protect do when they get power.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Hargreaves have a free guide you can request here:
www.hl.co.uk/pensions/drawdown
If you are Ok with managing your investments and aren't going to get tempted into spending all the money on the first day, I think it is well worth investigating. It is my plan for the DC part of my pension, which I will be able to draw in about two years time. I wouldn't, however, think that trading a final salary arrangement for it is likely to be sensible?
Thanks Ian. I am a bit wary with most of it being final salary , but by same tokemn it is also a gamble in that I have seen colleagues last only a short time after retiring and that is most of your final salry money gone, wife would get 50%. It is a shedload of money that would at least go to wife/family if I don't last a long time. Wouls also need to b ebad investments to burn up that amount of cash, and if I last a long time I reckon once you reach a certain point you will not be spending much.
Mr. G., The wife would only get 50%? That is the position I am in. When I pop my clogs Herself will get 50% of my gross pension, indexed linked, for as long as she lives, guaranteed. So I know she would be provided for and be able to live comfortably and without worrying about the state of the markets etc.. That gives us both a great deal of peace of mind. Might I suggest that there is more to pension planning than money.
Hurst, yes it is complex and many factors to consider, I just cannot stomach the thought that the majority of the money could potentially be lost. Hard to imagine she could spend that much in any event.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
sorry Nick there's a lack balance in this. Trump has a point when he says Clinton B actually did what he only talked about.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
He's not stupid but he's a cretin?
I'm confused (or possibly stupid).
He may not be stupid but he is:
a. misogynistic; b. racist; c. a sexual predator; d. a flat track bully; and e. so wrapped in self-adulation that ignorance and instinctive behaviour trumps (as it were) any intelligence; and f. surprisingly lacking in cunning (see d and e perhaps).
Edit: the world has changed and arguments such as JFK was worse or well it was fine in BT in the 90s should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
I've got no idea about the overall picture, but from my canvassing I'd say that both the Conservative and the Labour vote was softening. A chunk of Labour voters were put off by Corbyn and a lot of Conservative voters were both worried by Brexit and not keen on Theresa May.
When I was out door knocking I found Lib Dem leaflets pushed halfway through letterboxes on arrival, anyone who was out will have received a “Sorry you were out” card from me and then another leaflet was being delivered as we finished the area.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
sorry Nick there's a lack balance in this. Trump has a point when he says Clinton B actually did what he only talked about.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton.
An interesting and informative first hand account of the parties' by-election prospects from Witney. As expected, the Tories are as good as home and hosed. Rather disappointing from a betting perspective is the sense that Mr Wheatley appears to pour scorn on OGH's suggestion that the Red Team, might score less than 10%.
Excellent stuff - many thanks. If the LDs don't take second place here questions about Farron's leadership will start being asked, surely.
Yes. The LDs are treating this as a marginal seat for them and throwing in resources to do well. Labour seem to be barely bothered. With the Jo Cox seat voting on same day, maybe Labour see it as not worth the effort? But there is a chance (slim) that the media may point out how the main opposition party is slipping down in an election, worse if Labour lose their deposit.
Labour won 13% in 2010 in Witney. If they can't beat that then they really are in trouble. At their peak, in 1997, they won over 30% and have finished ahead of the Lib Dems in four of the six elections since (and including) 1992. It might be a weak seat for them but it's not one where they're badly placed vs the Lib Dems.
Not necessarily true. Once the electorate figure out who the challenger is in a by election, the third party gets squeezed. There are next to no consequences nationally.
That's true but if the principal party of opposition is overtaken by the party starting fourth, it's still a poor result. There's no good reason for Labour not to be the challenger: they start well-placed and have the historic results to back up that it wasn't simply a blip in 2015. It ought to be Labour squeezing the LD vote.
That would be very true if Labour were putting in the same effort as the LibDems - but ,of course, they are not!
And whose fault is that?
Indeed - but it would mean that the result is unlikely to be indicative of the underlying support of the two parties in the seat, but rather a reflection of the resources invested in the campaign.
The thing about fighting elections is that a lot of effort is needed to make a small difference - but sometimes a small difference is all the difference. Your observation could be said about any election campaign anywhere. But the reality is that if the LibDems don't have a following wind (and it is hard to detect one right now) then the difference lots of activists will make is on the margin only.
I agree - but it is easier to achieve on small turnouts - as evidenced by the LibDem local by election gains.
Bloody spot on. He was a very savvy negotiator. So is Trump. He's a persuader playing a role. And alpha male.
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
He's not stupid but he's a cretin?
I'm confused (or possibly stupid).
He may not be stupid but he is:
a. misogynistic; b. racist; c. a sexual predator; d. a flat track bully; and e. so wrapped in self-adulation that ignorance and instinctive behaviour trumps (as it were) any intelligence; and f. surprisingly lacking in cunning (see d and e perhaps).
Edit: the world has changed and arguments such as JFK was worse or well it was fine in BT in the 90s should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
You forgot pro-Putin.
But, no, he's just talking folksy to reach Joe Schmoe in Tuscaloosa.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
sorry Nick there's a lack balance in this. Trump has a point when he says Clinton B actually did what he only talked about.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton.
Bill will be the First Husband and inevitably adviser to HRC, if he's a flawed as Trump should he sit the rrole out ?
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
I thought this could have been true at the beginning of the campaign.
But as time has worn on, his utter lack of fitness for high office, coupled with his misogyny and willingness to play the racist card means I do not think he can supported - even against Clinton.
The grabbing pussy talk is objectionable not because of the word pussy but because it reveals a tolerance and even admiration of sexual violence.
I've been in the odd rugby locker room myself and never heard anyone actually boast of this.
Exactly. Banter is just that and, in my experience, is usually about what people would *like* to do rather than than what they have done (or claim to have done), and even then, is still kept within the bounds of consensuality. i find it disturbing that he clearly felt that these were acceptable comments to make in private, and still feels so. It's all the more disturbing that he made similar comments in his rallies about shooting people on Fifth and not losing support. It reveals the mindset of someone who has no idea where the boundaries of behaviour lie, and that's extremely dangerous in a senior politician.
His remark about "instructing" the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor falls into exactly that category, revealing either total ignorance, or contempt for the separation of powers.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
You could start off here (if you haven't already):
Google 'Invested Annuity' too, can go up and down but better rate than standard annuity. I think only Aviva doing them now, LV and Pru have stopped. If you're lucky enough to have final salary, look carefully before moving out of it. DYOR.
Thanks for that , I have mainly final salary but have £150K+ in DC as well. As other post , biggest concern is popping my clogs early and leaving all that cash to the company, .
The other thing you (may) need to be aware of is the 'Life Time Allowance' - go over it & you can get taxed quite a bit - but you can get protection:
''It is remarkably naive to think that Trump won't act in his own interests just because he's not a political insider.''
Maybe but the US electorate figure that with Trump, at least there's a chance. With every other US politician of any stature there is no chance. They all have client interests. That's the whole point of the Trump rebellion.
FPT I remember the post-analysis from POTUS 2012 when the consensus was that the republicans were doomed so long as they remained captured by their extreme Christians. That bit of their problem at least seems to have receded a little.
Evangelical Christians have accepted Trump's contrition - we're humans and we sin/repent.
Mormons are understandably more Umm, but the Utah GOP have said they'd back him.
SCOTUS is the key here. It's enormously important and I fear that very many PBers simply don't get it as a swing point.
Is there evidence that swing voters are motivated by the supreme court? You'd imagine they'd be unswingable if they thought it was an extremely important issue
Plus prospect of immigration from alien cultures ie Arabs/ME
The view was that without SCOTUS - and a Democrat inndamentally change.
Makes you wonder afresh how on Earth the Republicans ended up with Trump. And not just Trump, but Carson, Cruz, Rubio - all in their way mad, bad, and/or dangerous to know.
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
One could respect Reagan.
In the 1980 election campaign those on the Left didnt. The same nonsense being pumped out about Trump was being pumped out then. madman, warmonger, clueless B film actor
I was in a state of unshock when at the end of 1981 Reagan hadnt nuked the Soviets. The same garbage continued throughout his presidency by which time he had brought the Cold War to an end.
What nonsense is being spouted about Trump? He is openly playing up to the image that he isnt fit to be President. A man who says he's going to destroy ISIS but won't say how because of the need to be unpredictable? Let's hope he's a perfecty sane individual behind the scenes when not being a media whore. I wouldn't count on it though.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
What a load of cobblers. Trump's been talking politics for decades. I'm genuinely surprised by your post.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
It is remarkably naive to think that Trump won't act in his own interests just because he's not a political insider.
Look at Berlusconi for what rich men, with no political experience but with plenty of commercial, legal and other interests to protect do when they get power.
True Trump will act in his own interests, but so will HRC.
And whereas Trump so far has only himself to look after, HRC has all those heavy funders to pay back as well. I suspect her payback position is the more expensive for the ordinary American.
I'm still waiting for a Hilaryfan to give us a straight answer to should Bill be "First Husband" ? His past is as colourful as Trumps, so should he be allowed into the White House ?
Firstly I would find out a bit about the death in receipt terms of your pension arrangement - many final salary schemes have provisions that would provide an additional lump sum (sometimes defined as a minimum total payment) if you died very early in receipt.
As Mr Llama says, the associated benefits such as spouse/partner are a valuable (but often under-rated) benefit of a DB plan. Not something to be given up lightly, particularly if she (or he) is younger than you and/or in good health; 50% for life could be worth a lot!
The other factor is to check out the indexing arrangements of your DB plan - whether RPI or CPI and particularly whether the annual indexation is capped or not. An uncapped scheme - as some are - is worth a huge amount, particularly in times of economic uncertainty (just imagine the effect of a few years of 15% inflation compounded!).
And I am reasonably confident that plenty of Ohio barflies see this as the sort of behaviour that would render Trump as the bar asshole in their preferred haunts.
I've said it on an earlier thread - but it doesn't bother me an iota. I worked at BT sales offices in the 90s where this was commonplace pub banter, and depending on the company at others.
I think it's a massive fuss about nothing for those who either hear it and dismiss - or care about other stuff a lot more. It shrieks chatterati class outrage who don't get it as a cultural thing. Sex in the City was very ribald. A Twitter friend was a male stripper and most amusing on his hen night experiences.
I simply think it's an attitude divide - women who aren't bothered give as good as they get - in kind. What currency 'in kind' comes in is another matter.
Sexual assault is not a "massive fuss about nothing". I have been a victim of it. Your willingness to confuse ribald joking about sex and hen nights and people boasting about sexual crimes and the sexual attraction of young under-age girls is frankly appalling.
If you cannot see the difference, there is nothing more you and I can say on this topic.
Have a good day.
Firstly, I'm so sorry that happened to you, and no it really isn't " locker room" talk. Perhaps if it was secretly revealed he is in fact Muslim her blinkers would come crushing down?
"... Hard to imagine she could spend that much in any event."
Have you seen the price of shoes and handbags?
*Ducks and runs for cover before Mrs Free sees this post*
Life, Malcom, is very different in retirement. Freed from Philip Larkin’s Toad all sorts of opportunities open up. Long overseas trips for example, can be quite expensive.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
The viable option will either be Trump 2.0 all the sweet bigotry of Trump 1.0 but using the correct deniable dog whistles and without the meltdowns or a NeverTrump who stayed NeverTrump thus eliminating Cruz and the like.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
FPT I remember the post-analysis from POTUS 2012 when the consensus was that the republicans were doomed so long as they remained captured by their extreme Christians. That bit of their problem at least seems to have receded a little.
Evangelical Christians have accepted Trump's contrition - we're humans and we sin/repent.
Mormons are understandably more Umm, but the Utah GOP have said they'd back him.
SCOTUS is the key here. It's enormously important and I fear that very many PBers simply don't get it as a swing point.
Is there evidence that swing voters are motivated by the supreme court? You'd imagine they'd be unswingable if they thought it was an extremely important issue
After the tape - Trump needed to recover his base first - he seems to have largely done it. The media fussing has barely dented him, and generated more DK who are still Shy Trumpers.
SCOTUS is much wider than Roe vs Wade - it's death penalty and loads of other things we aren't even thinking of yet.
The liberal left are in charge of:
- education, via unions, faculties et al - the media - most multinationals in favour of globalisation
Plus prospect of immigration from alien cultures ie Arabs/ME
The view was that without SCOTUS - and a Democrat in office - the GOP was buggered. Social change would be too far gone, and the voting base would be swung massively towards Muslims. Immigration, liberal ideas et al would be embedded and America would fundamentally change.
He Can't win without expanding his base, and saying all DK are Shy trumpers is ridiculous. They are Tween the candidates.
Media fussing barely dented him? Aside from early indications of a sharp drop in polls and open warfare in the Republican caucuss, you're right, barely a scratch
hmmm
I dont like either candidate, but if Europe is an example " controversial" canndiates and parties get under-recordced both in the polls and increasingly in the exit forecasts.
In German elections the media has consistently called the AfD vote about 3-4% below what they actually achieve. The problem with villainisation is eventually people start lying because they dont want to say what they think.
I cant see the US being that different.
The immense liberal left sanctimonious tutting in the media is so tiresome - it's an outrage and exaggeration contest. 91% of Trumpers didn't give a toss, an extra 2% of undecideds liked him for it.
The disconnect between what the media thinks and what sections of the people think is enormous.
Of course hence why Trump is miles ahead in the polls...oh..wait...
"I'm still waiting for a Hilaryfan to give us a straight answer to should Bill be "First Husband" ? His past is as colourful as Trumps, so should he be allowed into the White House ?"
Bill is not standing for President; Hillary is. Nor am I aware of Bill boasting of sexual violence, whatever his philandering disposition.
I actually find your defence of Trump pretty shocking. That you seek to smear Hillary with false equivalence is truly awful.
I remember my own local by-election a few years ago. It was a safe Labour hold but the one party that improved its vote was Plaid. They were also the only ones from memory who bothered to stuff something through my door. I think people like to reward those who are at least 'making an effort' in such circumstances. I think the Lib Dems should be very wary of reading too much into these by election gains - particularly if the other parties aren't making much effort.
One thing in the LDs' favour not mentioned here is that (according to Guido) the Tory candidate is a Leaver. He'll still win of course, but with the 46L/54R result there must be plenty of Tory Remainers who'd consider lending a vote to the LDs.
I'm not familiar with the area but that's not the impression that i get generally of Tory Remainers. The vast majority were unenthusiastic about the EU but saw remaining as the better of two bad options, and and now reconciled to the done deal that Brexit is. How someone voted or campaigned in the spring is largely a dead issue unless they're obsessive on the point.
None of the Tory remainers I know feel like that. Not reconciled at all. And feeling pretty desperate about the future.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
Final salary transfer unlikely to be suitable unless you are in poorly health and/or single. The increasing pension payments in retirement are v costly to secure outside of a DB scheme, the spousal option/income isn't actually as valuable as that increasing income feature to replicate with a DC scheme.
The FCA still generally views it as poor advice to transfer someone out of a DB scheme although that may gradually change. If your benefit is over the limit of the PPF then that might be a reason to transfer if the scheme is 'wobbly' in its finances but again would need weighing up.
Sometimes it can make sense to 'commute' some of the DB pension for a larger tax free cash sum when you come to retire and take the DB pension - this is if you want to 'capture' some of the value against the risk of your early death in retirement AND usually it makes no difference to the spouses benefit if you die first. Worth checking that and how much £ TFC you get for every £ income you give up - the so-called commutation factor. The higher the factor, the more attractive the scheme is making it, anything in single figures (say £9 TFC for every £1 income is pretty paltry). Nearer 20x is much more tempting - depending on circumstances of course!
DC monies much more flexible and can be used to bridge the gap to retirement (when state pension &/or DB pension commence) and also now offer IHT planning opportunities too.
A combination of having both behind you is usually ideal. The value of a DB pension is woefully undervalued when it comes to the lifetime allowance limit of £1m - if that ceiling applies to you then it's perhaps another reason to keep the DB scheme.
I saw earlier someone mentioned investment-linked annuities (something Pru pushed a lot), I've never recommended anyone in to them.
As you mention an adviser will need to properly research and 'sign' off any transfer from a DB scheme and we're not cheap as it puts us in the firing line for future complaints potentially.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
I've got no idea about the overall picture, but from my canvassing I'd say that both the Conservative and the Labour vote was softening. A chunk of Labour voters were put off by Corbyn and a lot of Conservative voters were both worried by Brexit and not keen on Theresa May.
When I was out door knocking I found Lib Dem leaflets pushed halfway through letterboxes on arrival, anyone who was out will have received a “Sorry you were out” card from me and then another leaflet was being delivered as we finished the area.
The halfway leaflets will be down to all these new members...
Yes pension benefits to your spouse / wife etc is critical.
Just Reading the money saver guide that Mr Logical posted ( thank you) I note you have to be careful because not all of the 6 ways a pension can be taken allows your wife to benefit.
* makes mental note to go see pension advisor ASAP*
"I'm still waiting for a Hilaryfan to give us a straight answer to should Bill be "First Husband" ? His past is as colourful as Trumps, so should he be allowed into the White House ?"
Bill is not standing for President; Hillary is. Nor am I aware of Bill boasting of sexual violence, whatever his philandering disposition.
I actually find your defence of Trump pretty shocking. That you seek to smear Hillary with false equivalence is truly awful.
And they wonder why Hillary is paranoid.
yes your socalled moral outrage doesnt actually work.
You also fail to see that I'm not defending Trump but simply pointing out the Clintons are in the same swamp. Bill didnt boast but tried to hide it - is that a better approach ?
And whether you like it or not he's part of the package, with all his flaws lumped in with Hilary's.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
Add in his creepy obsession with his own daughter and I just don't understand how anyone could still support him. Possibly vote for him given the alternative and the idea of Clinton nominating up to 3 ultra liberal justices to the SCOTUS in 4 years, but not support Trump.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
What a load of cobblers. Trump's been talking politics for decades. I'm genuinely surprised by your post.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
I worked in a BT sales and marketing office in the 80s and it was a pretty raucous place, the women giving as good as they got.
I think Gardenwalker is right - there is a difference between using crude language and boasting of the use of power to have sexual abuse tolerated. Was that common in BT sales offices? Indeed, were the people you're quoting powerful enough to make the comparison relevant?
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
It'd be interesting to see a market on Trump being impeached if elected. Given (1) his lack of partisan support and (2) his apparent contempt for at the least, norms of behaviour and at worst, the law, it'd have to be quite likely.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Trump's got IIRC almost 3m donors who've given under $200. The average he said last night is $63.
''B Clinton has already served two terms as President. Clinton, the candidate, is a different Clinton. '' Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women. Do me a favour.
The viable option will either be Trump 2.0 all the sweet bigotry of Trump 1.0 but using the correct deniable dog whistles and without the meltdowns or a NeverTrump who stayed NeverTrump thus eliminating Cruz and the like.
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
What a load of cobblers. Trump's been talking politics for decades. I'm genuinely surprised by your post.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
''You also fail to see that I'm not defending Trump but simply pointing out the Clintons are in the same swamp. Bill didnt boast but tried to hide it - is that a better approach ?''
Bill and Hillary are in an even deeper swamp, in my view.
I read they had the Trump tape since late August, after Billy Bush was drunk at a party recounting stories of Trump and the tv network ordered a look through the archives.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Trump's got IIRC almost 3m donors who've given under $200. The average he said last night is $63.
Hillary is swimming in Soros, Goldman...
By that token Jez should be home and dry here. The Tory party is funded by a list of a few very large donors while Jez has enlisted the masses.
Tbh, political donations are just par for the course. If America was interested in campaign finance reform then Bernie would have won the nomination.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Trump's got IIRC almost 3m donors who've given under $200. The average he said last night is $63.
Hillary is swimming in Soros, Goldman...
By that token Jez should be home and dry here. The Tory party is funded by a list of a few very large donors while Jez has enlisted the masses.
Tbh, political donations are just par for the course. If America was interested in campaign finance reform then Bernie would have won the nomination.
In the UK we palm them off with a peerage in the US they want money
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
It is an assault. It did happen in the 70's and 80's. It was wrong then - an assault - a crime. And it is now.
Yes it is sad that women (not just young ladies) are at risk of molestation. It is not just sad. It is outrageous. Some of the views expressed on here may help explain why some men think that they are (a) entitled to behave in such a way; (b) believe they will get away with it; and (c) don't really think it very wrong.
With the turnout likely to be down and the Conservative vote share likely to drop, there is going to be plenty for everyone else. Corbynites are motivated for their man so I don't expect the Labour vote share to drop much, if at all. I've bet on the 2/1 that Labour will get between 10-15% of the vote share and I'm as anxious about the top end as the bottom end.
To date Labour have exceeded (admittedly low) expectations in every electoral test that they've faced to date. That pattern might well continue.
Alastair, completely off topic, do you have any good advice of where to look for information on flexible draw down pensions and benefits versus negatives of switching from existing funds/final salary/etc. Obviously it would eventually mean Financial adviser if really looking at it but want to do some initial searching.
Final salary transfer unlikely to be suitable unless you are in poorly health and/or single. The increasing pension payments in retirement are v costly to secure outside of a DB scheme
Agree - although I knew it was unlikely to be a good idea, I did go through the exercise of seeing what sort of return would be required to secure the same pension as my final salary one - in a word, or four, 'very, very, very optimistic'......
But final salary pension holders do need to be aware of the Lifetime Allowance cuts (thank you, George...)
Trump is a NYC liberal from Queens. He talks pugnaciously because that's his home town lingo - so it's hitting people, knocking them out et al. It's just colloquial. It upsets the PC brigade - and loved as common man by blue collars.
He's swapped sides because IMO - he thinks America has lost it's way, it's become supine/losing its edge and pride 'Make America Great Again' isn't a slogan - it's a core belief.
I'd stick him in the Reagan mindset politically - clearly he's not suave - but he's a cowboy.
I thought this could have been true at the beginning of the campaign.
But as time has worn on, his utter lack of fitness for high office, coupled with his misogyny and willingness to play the racist card means I do not think he can supported - even against Clinton.
The grabbing pussy talk is objectionable not because of the word pussy but because it reveals a tolerance and even admiration of sexual violence.
I've been in the odd rugby locker room myself and never heard anyone actually boast of this.
Exactly. Banter is just that and, in my experience, is usually about what people would *like* to do rather than than what they have done (or claim to have done), and even then, is still kept within the bounds of consensuality. i find it disturbing that he clearly felt that these were acceptable comments to make in private, and still feels so. It's all the more disturbing that he made similar comments in his rallies about shooting people on Fifth and not losing support. It reveals the mindset of someone who has no idea where the boundaries of behaviour lie, and that's extremely dangerous in a senior politician.
I said this earlier - it's Queens' language.
My Geordie parly isn't what I'd say down here - but he's reverted to blue collar colloquial. I'm really surprised by how many sophisticated sorts can't see it.
Tony's estuary English or Nigel Kennedy now sounding like a thick yob rather than his 12yrs old self of crisp RP.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
Well you didn't want to do something like that in the 70s when Jimmy Savile was DJing, he locked you in the cellar.
And I am reasonably confident that plenty of Ohio barflies see this as the sort of behaviour that would render Trump as the bar asshole in their preferred haunts.
I've said it on an earlier thread - but it doesn't bother me an iota. I worked at BT sales offices in the 90s where this was commonplace pub banter, and depending on the company at others.
I think it's a massive fuss about nothing for those who either hear it and dismiss - or care about other stuff a lot more. It shrieks chatterati class outrage who don't get it as a cultural thing. Sex in the City was very ribald. A Twitter friend was a male stripper and most amusing on his hen night experiences.
I simply think it's an attitude divide - women who aren't bothered give as good as they get - in kind. What currency 'in kind' comes in is another matter.
Sexual assault is not a "massive fuss about nothing". I have been a victim of it. Your willingness to confuse ribald joking about sex and hen nights and people boasting about sexual crimes and the sexual attraction of young under-age girls is frankly appalling.
If you cannot see the difference, there is nothing more you and I can say on this topic.
Have a good day.
Golly - he didn't assault anyone - if you watched the tape - he bragged in locker room manner and the actress in question said she'd deliberately flirted with him and loved the attention as fun.
I was out canvassing with the Lib Dems in Witney on Saturday. As well as the coachload of Londoners that I travelled there with, there were people from Liverpool, Manchester, Wolverhampton, Yorkshire and Southampton.
And there, in a sentence, is why by elections really aren't that meaningful.
They can help a party massively, just ask UKIP after Clacton.
Did Clacton make much difference? UKIP had already won the Euroelections across the entire country a few months earlier so picking up a single constituency, while a landmark, didn't exactly explode them on to the map.
The this pussygate thing, I have two daughters. Both have told me when in public places they have been touched inappropriately on different occasions during nights out in the town. The contact was not encouraged or welcome. I was quite horrified but they seemed almost relaxed about it saying well Dad it happens. They didn't like it but I guess to all intents and purposes it's an assault.
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
It is an assault. It did happen in the 70's and 80's. It was wrong then - an assault - a crime. And it is now.
Yes it is sad that women (not just young ladies) are at risk of molestation. It is not just sad. It is outrageous. Some of the views expressed on here may help explain why some men think that they are (a) entitled to behave in such a way; (b) believe they will get away with it; and (c) don't really think it very wrong.
Welcome to our world.
Which is why I don't understand the lack of reaction from some people. I've never been in that situation (though I know a couple of guys who have), but know a few girls from my university days that had to deal with it on a semi-regular basis. They seemed irritated and eventually we just stopped going out to bars and clubs on Friday and Saturday night, avoiding all contact with the locals.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Trump's got IIRC almost 3m donors who've given under $200. The average he said last night is $63.
Hillary is swimming in Soros, Goldman...
By that token Jez should be home and dry here. The Tory party is funded by a list of a few very large donors while Jez has enlisted the masses.
Tbh, political donations are just par for the course. If America was interested in campaign finance reform then Bernie would have won the nomination.
Haven't you heard Corybnism is sweeping the nation....sweeping the nation clean of Labour MPs....
Russian President Vladimir Putin has canceled a planned visit to France next week, a Kremlin source said Tuesday, in an apparent snub to French President Francois Hollande, who suggested Moscow was guilty of war crimes in Syria.
''Reagan was governor of California before standing for POTUS. Trump isn't anywhere near the same league.''
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
Trump's got IIRC almost 3m donors who've given under $200. The average he said last night is $63.
Hillary is swimming in Soros, Goldman...
By that token Jez should be home and dry here. The Tory party is funded by a list of a few very large donors while Jez has enlisted the masses.
Tbh, political donations are just par for the course. If America was interested in campaign finance reform then Bernie would have won the nomination.
You do not understand Plato's views.
It is wrong to be funded by big business or the rich in the USA.
But it is alright to be funded by big business or the rich in the UK.
Comments
Reagan was my favourite POTUS for bundles of reasons - but he wasn't ever seen as some great man in advance.
Sexual assault is not a "massive fuss about nothing". I have been a victim of it. Your willingness to confuse ribald joking about sex and hen nights and people boasting about sexual crimes and the sexual attraction of young under-age girls is frankly appalling.
If you cannot see the difference, there is nothing more you and I can say on this topic.
Have a good day.
Who usually speaks for the government on foreign affairs? Just the PM?
I'm sure many Trump supporters would agree with you. He is a blunt instrument that they are using to smash America's Liberal elite.
If and when it is done, he could be lame ducked. That is the nature of politics.
Wonders of Brexit !
Those who don't see how sophisticated much of this is aren't watching. He's not a hick who only knows 850 words. He uses 850 words to communicate in short soundbites to those who talk a similar 10yrs old education.
Anyone daft enough to believe a man who went to Wharton is stupid needs a good shake. He's knocked out over a dozen rivals, paid 000,000s for a decade on a TV show, runs a business with assets over $3bn.
Yup - he's a cretin. He's a giant bragger and a load of other stuff - but he's played the media like a fiddle.
As I've said before, I think that the scattergun criticism of people one doesn't like devalues the serious stuff, like saying of a bank robber "and he jumped a red light!" Lots of Trump voters and probably quite a few non-Trump voters aren't too bothered that he's crude (I've heard lots of casual swearing in the Commons, come to that, including from some very well-known people). But a view that it's nice to be powerful because it means you can get away with criminal behaviour is a serious defect in a would-be President.
Trump is popular because he isn;t a politico insider. All politicians owe tribute to the money people who finance their campaigns, and when they get into office, it's payback time.
The appeal of Trump is that he isn;t part of this system and is far more likely to stand up to vested interest than Hillary CLinton.
Hillary is the personification of vested interest.
I'm confused (or possibly stupid).
That defect applies to Clinton as well.
(After the inevitable Trump defeat...)
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/nebraska-senator-ben-sasse-never-trump-republicans
In a documentary about Reagan it emerged he detested nuclear weapons and when he met Gorbachev stunned him with immediate offers to slash warhead numbers.
Look at Berlusconi for what rich men, with no political experience but with plenty of commercial, legal and other interests to protect do when they get power.
If the act is the key event then both sides should be hanging their heads in shame, the Clintonites are ramping Trump's crudeness while hoping nobody calls their side out. That;s politics but it would jjust make the site more readable if we didnt have to listen to the moral cant that goes with it from PBers who ought to know better.
a. misogynistic;
b. racist;
c. a sexual predator;
d. a flat track bully; and
e. so wrapped in self-adulation that ignorance and instinctive behaviour trumps (as it were) any intelligence; and
f. surprisingly lacking in cunning (see d and e perhaps).
Edit: the world has changed and arguments such as JFK was worse or well it was fine in BT in the 90s should be treated with the contempt that they deserve.
I've got no idea about the overall picture, but from my canvassing I'd say that both the Conservative and the Labour vote was softening. A chunk of Labour voters were put off by Corbyn and a lot of Conservative voters were both worried by Brexit and not keen on Theresa May.
When I was out door knocking I found Lib Dem leaflets pushed halfway through letterboxes on arrival, anyone who was out will have received a “Sorry you were out” card from me and then another leaflet was being delivered as we finished the area.
But, no, he's just talking folksy to reach Joe Schmoe in Tuscaloosa.
Comparisons with Reagan are nauseating.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/pension-schemes-protect-your-lifetime-allowance
Maybe but the US electorate figure that with Trump, at least there's a chance. With every other US politician of any stature there is no chance. They all have client interests. That's the whole point of the Trump rebellion.
@Cyclefree
Those who think Trump is like Reagan are being as idiotically ignorant as those you describe.
Reagan had a long history of political activism and standing successfully for political office. He had political experience.
Trump has none of these things. He is an ignoramus who thinks that shouting and bluster and offensiveness are a substitute for thought, experience and the hard work needed to achieve political office and make a success of it. He risks betraying the hopes and needs of those he claims to speak for, people who do not have wealth to fall back on, who cannot parlay their way into lucrative TV programmes.
It is easy to sneer at liberal elites. Just because they are wrong about some things does not mean they are wrong about everything. Nor does it mean that those who publicly proclaim themselves to be against the liberal elites are right or worth listening to. That is just attitudinizing and pose-striking and such behaviour is no more worth paying attention to in a 60 year old than in a 16 year old. Indeed rather less since one normally supposes a 60 year old to have achieved some level of maturity.
What a load of cobblers. Trump's been talking politics for decades. I'm genuinely surprised by your post.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Involvement_in_politics.2C_1988.E2.80.932015
"... Hard to imagine she could spend that much in any event."
Have you seen the price of shoes and handbags?
*Ducks and runs for cover before Mrs Free sees this post*
Hillary's role in those presidency terms was as his protector, his shield, His facilitator. And she professes to stand up for women.
Do me a favour.
And whereas Trump so far has only himself to look after, HRC has all those heavy funders to pay back as well. I suspect her payback position is the more expensive for the ordinary American.
I'm still waiting for a Hilaryfan to give us a straight answer to should Bill be "First Husband" ? His past is as colourful as Trumps, so should he be allowed into the White House ?
His accusers want to call him First Rapist.
Firstly I would find out a bit about the death in receipt terms of your pension arrangement - many final salary schemes have provisions that would provide an additional lump sum (sometimes defined as a minimum total payment) if you died very early in receipt.
As Mr Llama says, the associated benefits such as spouse/partner are a valuable (but often under-rated) benefit of a DB plan. Not something to be given up lightly, particularly if she (or he) is younger than you and/or in good health; 50% for life could be worth a lot!
The other factor is to check out the indexing arrangements of your DB plan - whether RPI or CPI and particularly whether the annual indexation is capped or not. An uncapped scheme - as some are - is worth a huge amount, particularly in times of economic uncertainty (just imagine the effect of a few years of 15% inflation compounded!).
Perhaps if it was secretly revealed he is in fact Muslim her blinkers would come crushing down?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3729466/Child-rape-victim-comes-forward-time-40-years-call-Hillary-Clinton-liar-defended-rapist-smearing-blocking-evidence-callously-laughing-knew-guilty.html
I just don't remember this happening when I was out and about in the 70's and 80's though I suppose it must have gone on. It's just rather sad that young ladies cannot go out without the risk of being molested.
"I'm still waiting for a Hilaryfan to give us a straight answer to should Bill be "First Husband" ? His past is as colourful as Trumps, so should he be allowed into the White House ?"
Bill is not standing for President; Hillary is.
Nor am I aware of Bill boasting of sexual violence, whatever his philandering disposition.
I actually find your defence of Trump pretty shocking. That you seek to smear Hillary with false equivalence is truly awful.
And they wonder why Hillary is paranoid.
The FCA still generally views it as poor advice to transfer someone out of a DB scheme although that may gradually change. If your benefit is over the limit of the PPF then that might be a reason to transfer if the scheme is 'wobbly' in its finances but again would need weighing up.
Sometimes it can make sense to 'commute' some of the DB pension for a larger tax free cash sum when you come to retire and take the DB pension - this is if you want to 'capture' some of the value against the risk of your early death in retirement AND usually it makes no difference to the spouses benefit if you die first. Worth checking that and how much £ TFC you get for every £ income you give up - the so-called commutation factor. The higher the factor, the more attractive the scheme is making it, anything in single figures (say £9 TFC for every £1 income is pretty paltry). Nearer 20x is much more tempting - depending on circumstances of course!
DC monies much more flexible and can be used to bridge the gap to retirement (when state pension &/or DB pension commence) and also now offer IHT planning opportunities too.
A combination of having both behind you is usually ideal. The value of a DB pension is woefully undervalued when it comes to the lifetime allowance limit of £1m - if that ceiling applies to you then it's perhaps another reason to keep the DB scheme.
I saw earlier someone mentioned investment-linked annuities (something Pru pushed a lot), I've never recommended anyone in to them.
As you mention an adviser will need to properly research and 'sign' off any transfer from a DB scheme and we're not cheap as it puts us in the firing line for future complaints potentially.
Just Reading the money saver guide that Mr Logical posted ( thank you) I note you have to be careful because not all of the 6 ways a pension can be taken allows your wife to benefit.
* makes mental note to go see pension advisor ASAP*
You also fail to see that I'm not defending Trump but simply pointing out the Clintons are in the same swamp. Bill didnt boast but tried to hide it - is that a better approach ?
And whether you like it or not he's part of the package, with all his flaws lumped in with Hilary's.
"Trump floated the idea of running for president in 1988, 2004, and 2012, and for Governor of New York in 2006 and 2014, but did not enter those races.[244][245] He was considered as a potential running mate for George H. W. Bush on the Republican Party's 1988 presidential ticket but lost out to future Vice President Dan Quayle. There is dispute over whether Trump or the Bush camp made the initial pitch.[246]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Involvement_in_politics.2C_1988.E2.80.932015
In response to @PlatoSaid:
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
Hillary is swimming in Soros, Goldman...
You make my point. Lots of talk. No action. A man who has never stood for political office until now. So exactly like someone who spent ages in politics, won political office and had a track record. It is you who is talking cobblers. This is, frankly, given your recent posts no longer a surprise.
Am off. Have work to do. The atmosphere on here has become horrible.
Mainly because of you.
Bill and Hillary are in an even deeper swamp, in my view.
Tbh, political donations are just par for the course. If America was interested in campaign finance reform then Bernie would have won the nomination.
Yes it is sad that women (not just young ladies) are at risk of molestation. It is not just sad. It is outrageous. Some of the views expressed on here may help explain why some men think that they are (a) entitled to behave in such a way; (b) believe they will get away with it; and (c) don't really think it very wrong.
Welcome to our world.
But final salary pension holders do need to be aware of the Lifetime Allowance cuts (thank you, George...)
My Geordie parly isn't what I'd say down here - but he's reverted to blue collar colloquial. I'm really surprised by how many sophisticated sorts can't see it.
Tony's estuary English or Nigel Kennedy now sounding like a thick yob rather than his 12yrs old self of crisp RP.
It's a massive PC huff puff.
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/10/11/world/syria-aleppo-conflict/index.html
It is wrong to be funded by big business or the rich in the USA.
But it is alright to be funded by big business or the rich in the UK.